There's UI and then there's UI

[Coelacanth]

ACBL Regional "Gold Rush" Swiss Teams (players are limited to 750 MP)

 

[hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1s2np3n4s(See%20text)pp]133|100[/hv]

 

The auction proceeded as shown. Following the 3NT bid, E asked N about the 2NT bid and was told "strong, 16-18 balanced". South immediately reacted to this; I don't know exactly what was said, but it was now clear everyone at the table, notably including N, that 2NT had been intended as Unusual, showing the minors. This is the actual NS agreement and S did indeed hold the minors.

 

No TD was called at this point. E basically knew what was going on and chose to bid 4S. Two passes followed and N, being generally unaware of her responsibilities with regard to UI, began to reach for the bid section of the bid box. She was about to bid 5C when South physically reached across the table to prevent her from bidding, saying something like "No, you can't bid here".

 

At this point the TD was finally called. It seems that N is in possession of two conflicting pieces of UI. (1) She knows from partner's earlier response that 2NT was Unusual, not strong. This UI demonstrably suggest that she bid 5 of a minor (other LA's perhaps being pass, dbl, and 4NT natural). (2) She has UI from partner's lunge across the table which demonstrably (to say the least!) suggests passing.

 

I'll share the final outcome later, but I'm interested in what approach you would take as TD when called to the table at this moment. These are (obviously) not experienced players, and there is no suggestion that South's actions were a deliberate attempt to violate the Laws. However, if you wish to discuss the size of the book that you would throw at an experienced South player here, please feel free to do so.

[RMB1]

Does the second bit of UI really suggest passing - the information is that South thinks North is legally obliged to pass, not that South wants North to pass.

 

North can easily avoid both bits of UI by doubling.

[ahydra]

Let me be the third one to upvote RMB1's response - I don't think there's any UI associated with South's lunge-and-comment.

 

Would be useful to see N's hand.

 

ahydra

[Bbradley62]

These are (obviously) not experienced players, and there is no suggestion that South's actions were a deliberate attempt to violate the Laws. However, if you wish to discuss the size of the book that you would throw at an experienced South player here, please feel free to do so.

I'd still throw a book at South; under 750 is not nearly the same as novice, and there are almost always novice games that run opposite Gold Rush events at Regionals. However, before selecting the book I might try to determine whether South was a new-ish (paperback) or trying to "educate" a less-experienced North (small hard-cover). For all we know, North could have a very long minor, and was willing to gamble 3N opposite a strong NT partner, but prefers 5m to either 5N or defending (opposite the same strong 1N partner) once opponent has bid 4♠.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Bbradley62

[nige1]

Following the 3NT bid, E asked N about the 2NT bid and was told "strong, 16-18 balanced". South immediately reacted to this; I don't know exactly what was said, but it was now clear everyone at the table, notably including N, that 2NT had been intended as Unusual, showing the minors. This is the actual NS agreement and S did indeed hold the minors. No TD was called at this point. E basically knew what was going on and chose to bid 4S. Two passes followed and N, being generally unaware of her responsibilities with regard to UI, began to reach for the bid section of the bid box. She was about to bid 5C when South physically reached across the table to prevent her from bidding, saying something like "No, you can't bid here".

Does the second bit of UI really suggest passing - the information is that South thinks North is legally obliged to pass, not that South wants North to pass. North can easily avoid both bits of UI by doubling.

IMO

• South's early UI suggests North bids 5♣. (His "reaction" to North's wrong explanation).
• South's later UI suggests North passes or doubles. (North is about to bid 5♣. South tries to stop him and avoid the risk of an adverse ruling).
• Actions by North use one bit of UI or the other. He's impaled on Morton's fork.
• The director might consider that South has rendered the board unplayable and rule accordingly.

[helene_t]

The director might consider that South has rendered the board unplayable and rule accordingly.

Nah. North probably has no alternative to double so it shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the score, unless either defender takes advantage of UI in the play.

[Trinidad]

(South is about to bid 5♣ and to avoid the risk of an adverse ruling, North tries to prevent that).

I don't agree. (Apart from the mix up in South and North.)

 

South is not trying to avoid an adverse ruling. South is trying to prevent an irregularity. That is a big difference. You do not know why South is trying to prevent an irregularity.

 

Most of the time people try to prevent irregularities, because they "disrupt the game", "lead to trouble", or "are not the way the game is supposed to be played". The Laws clearly cater to partners preventing each other's irregularities: you can ask about revokes, dummy can prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand, you can stop your partner who is about to lead out of turn, and so on. It is fair to say that the Laws and customs of bridge are encouraging players to prevent irregularities. But there are situations where you are not allowed to prevent an irregularity, and this is one of them.

 

There is absolutely no basis for the conclusion that South was trying to prevent the irregularity because he wanted to avoid an adverse ruling. I don't have any basis for concluding that South was preventing an irregularity because he thought he was doing a good deed, either. But I do think that my explanation is more likely than yours.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

What should the TD do at this point?

 

He should tell the players that the earlier reaction by South is UI to North and AI to South. North needs to choose from logical alternatives the one that is not suggested by the UI.

He should tell the same about the comment by South when he tried to prevent a 5♣ bid. North should be told that he should bid what he thinks is correct, according to the laws (they are AI), and not let South's comment influence him.

 

And then the TD tells the players to continue and call him back if they think that North's action may have been suggested by UI. He will rule on this matter. These hings do not mean the world is about to end. This is no big deal and there is no need to fear capital punishment.

 

South will get a PP (probably in the form of a warning) for trying to prevent an irregularity when he wasn't allowed to do that. (It seems wise to give this PP after the hand is over, since otherwise it will just add to the confusion.)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Nah. North probably has no alternative to double so it shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the score, unless either defender takes advantage of UI in the play.

I agree with you. But Nigel's idea is that South's second comment suggests double over the LA that North was about to choose (5♣).

 

I don't agree with Nigel. The TD will explain the Laws regarding the earlier UI to the players. This explanation is AI and, after the explanation, 5♣ is not an LA anymore.

 

Rik

[nige1]

South tries to stop North from bidding 5♣. South's motive might be altruistic although, unless you can see North's hand, you can't be sure that bidding 5♣ is an irregularity. IMO South's action is illegal and UI and suggests double/pass over 5♣.

 

Suppose the director's explanation implies that double is the only permissible LA for North and 4♠X goes down. Suppose East has an easy double of 5♣ which would also go down. Rub of the green?

[blackshoe]

At this point I have only one comment: South's attempt to stop North from bidding is a violation of Law 73B1, which is a "shall not" law, and hence a serious offense. I would be looking for a good reason not to give a PP in MPs, rather than a reason to give one. Even if I don't give more than a warning, I will make sure South is aware just how serious this is — and if I do give a warning, South is going to be damn sure that if it ever happens again I will throw the book at him.

[Trinidad]

South tries to stop North from bidding 5♣. South's motive might be altruistic although, unless you can see North's hand, you can't be sure that bidding 5♣ is an irregularity.

Agree

IMO South's action is illegal

Agree

UI

Agree

suggests double/pass over 5♣.

Agree.

 

But, after the TD has explained North's obligations regarding the first UI, 5♣ is not an LA anymore (unless North holds 6 clubs, which is unlikely, and I assume that this is not the case). So, double/pass is not suggested over an LA, and, therefore, doubling/passing is not an irregularity.

 

Suppose the director's explanation implies that double is the only permissible LA for North and 4♠X goes down. Suppose East has an easy double of 5♣ which would also go down. Rub of the green?

Yes. (However, it is good to note that this scenario is much less likely than the 4♠X with an overtrick scenario, given that North, more or less automatically decided to save in 5♣. But it is possible and then it is the rub of the green.)

 

Rik

[RMB1]

If North was about to bid 5♣ and that would lead to a good score for the opponents, and South could have known that bidding would be bad, and South's intervention effectively prevented North from bidding, then there must be a case for Law 23.

[Trinidad]

If North was about to bid 5♣ and that would lead to a good score for the opponents, and South could have known that bidding would be bad, and South's intervention effectively prevented North from bidding, then there must be a case for Law 23.

True, but let's not forget that all players are guilty of an infraction: There was MI, and it became clear that there was MI. The TD should have been called at that point. None of the players did. If one of them would have called the TD then, the "trying to prevent" the irregularity would not have happened.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

I agree.

 

In a different world, South would have called the TD as soon as they reacted and "it was now clear everyone at the table, notably including N, that 2NT had been intended as Unusual". South should have admitted to a breach of Law 20F5(a). ("A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.")

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Here's how this played out.

 

I was called to the table following South's attempt to prevent North from bidding. I first explained that there is a correct time and place for correcting partner's misexplanation of your call, and that South's comment earlier in the auction was not that time. I also admonished South that her attempt to prevent North from bidding was, while surely well-intentioned, most improper. I then carefully explained the ramifications of South's earlier UI to North, making clear that she had UI suggesting a 5C (or 5D) call and that if she made such a call and this damaged her opponents, the score would likely be adjusted.

 

North then passed, ending the auction with East declarer in 4S. I instructed the players to play the hand out and to call me back if they thought they needed to. I was called back at the end of the play.

 

The result of the hand was 4S -2 by East. East was insistent that, because of South's table action at the end of the auction, North should be required to bid 5C. (He had seen the West hand during the play, of course, but was probably not up to the full analysis to determine a likely result had North bid.) I instructed them to score up 4S -2 and took the board to review with my colleagues.

 

Our consensus was that everyone shared blame here, even West who had said nothing during either of my visits to the table but who failed to call me at the time of the original UI. We thought that it was clear that NS's actions were much the more egregious. We thus ruled that there would be no adjustment due to the original UI (North had passed where 5C was suggested). We then dealt with South's reach across the table, which we considered a grave violation of L73. Since North, by her own admission, was attempting to bid 5C, we decided to impose that call on her for purposes of determining an adjusted score under L12. We felt that 5Cx -2 by North was both the most favorable result likely for EW and the most unfavorable at all probable for NS. We thus assigned this result for both sides.

 

All four players were given a reminder to call the TD when any irregularity arises. I also reminded them of the appropriate time and method to correct partner's misexplanation. I also strongly admonished South for her actions at the end of the auction, explaining that such behavior would be subject to procedural penalty more often than not. We decided not to assess a PP in this case because South was contrite and apologetic about the whole thing, and the score adjustment was by itself quite a stiff penalty.

[helene_t]

Wasn't doubling 4♠ an LA for North? At matchpoints it may not matter though. But 5♣x-2 seems wrong to me.

[blackshoe]

…and the score adjustment was by itself quite a stiff penalty.

Had you said "was (or would be) perceived as quite a stiff penalty, I would agree with the statement, though not with the reasoning for not giving a PP. As written, I disagree entirely. A score adjustment is not a penalty. It is done to restore equity. Consideration of whether to impose a penalty (via a procedural penalty as a warning, which seems to be in effect what you did, or in MPs or IMPs) is (or should be) a completely separate question. In the case at hand, a PP in some form seems appropriate. If you judge that a warning is sufficient, that's fine, but I would make it clear that it is a warning, and that if they do it again, they will be penalized - and then make sure that happens.

 

Other than that I think you handled it well.

[Coelacanth]

Had you said "was (or would be) perceived as quite a stiff penalty, I would agree with the statement, though not with the reasoning for not giving a PP. As written, I disagree entirely. A score adjustment is not a penalty. It is done to restore equity. Consideration of whether to impose a penalty (via a procedural penalty as a warning, which seems to be in effect what you did, or in MPs or IMPs) is (or should be) a completely separate question. In the case at hand, a PP in some form seems appropriate. If you judge that a warning is sufficient, that's fine, but I would make it clear that it is a warning, and that if they do it again, they will be penalized - and then make sure that happens.

 

Other than that I think you handled it well.

You're completely right, of course. I didn't state that well. Having their score changed from +200 to -500 was perceived as fairly severe. Since none of the infractions was a deliberate attempt to violate the rules, we felt that a stern warning and a reminder about correct procedures was more appropriate than an actual PP.

 

Another factor which may be relevant is that this was the last match of a long day's swiss, and this table was in the round-robin. Essentially this match was competition for 48th place out of 50, and all the players just wanted to finish up and go home. So a PP would not have added much impact, and since we did make clear that a repeat of this behavior WOULD result in a PP, we decided a warning was sufficient.

[barmar]

"punishment" is often used to refer to any kind of suffering that results from an error. E.g. "I got punished for forgetting my umbrella by getting soaked in the rain." It doesn't have to be an intentional penalty.

 

There's a saying that virtue is its own reward; similarly, pain can be its own punishment.

[nige1]

But, after the TD has explained North's obligations regarding the first UI, 5♣ is not an LA anymore (unless North holds 6 clubs, which is unlikely, and I assume that this is not the case). So, double/pass is not suggested over an LA, and, therefore, doubling/passing is not an irregularity.

Suppose the director's explanation implies that double is the only permissible LA for North and 4♠X goes down. Suppose East has an easy double of 5♣ which would also go down. Rub of the green?

Yes. (However, it is good to note that this scenario is much less likely than the 4♠X with an overtrick scenario, given that North, more or less automatically decided to save in 5♣. But it is possible and then it is the rub of the green.)

I was called to the table following South's attempt to prevent North from bidding. I first explained that there is a correct time and place for correcting partner's misexplanation of your call, and that South's comment earlier in the auction was not that time. I also admonished South that her attempt to prevent North from bidding was, while surely well-intentioned, most improper. I then carefully explained the ramifications of South's earlier UI to North, making clear that she had UI suggesting a 5C (or 5D) call and that if she made such a call and this damaged her opponents, the score would likely be adjusted. North then passed, ending the auction with East declarer in 4S. I instructed the players to play the hand out and to call me back if they thought they needed to. I was called back at the end of the play. The result of the hand was 4S -2 by East. East was insistent that, because of South's table action at the end of the auction, North should be required to bid 5C. (He had seen the West hand during the play, of course, but was probably not up to the full analysis to determine a likely result had North bid.) I instructed them to score up 4S -2 and took the board to review with my colleagues. Our consensus was that everyone shared blame here, even West who had said nothing during either of my visits to the table but who failed to call me at the time of the original UI.

If nobody called attention to South's original infraction, why was anybody abliged to call the director?

We thought that it was clear that NS's actions were much the more egregious. We thus ruled that there would be no adjustment due to the original UI (North had passed where 5C was suggested). We then dealt with South's reach across the table, which we considered a grave violation of L73. Since North, by her own admission, was attempting to bid 5C, we decided to impose that call on her for purposes of determining an adjusted score under L12. We felt that 5Cx -2 by North was both the most favorable result likely for EW and the most unfavorable at all probable for NS. We thus assigned this result for both sides.

So much for "rub of the green" :( There seems to be broad agreement on the way to go about this ruling, so, again, I have to accept I may be wrong. But this shows why players find the laws unfair and incomprehensible. Unless warned that law 23 applies, North-South won't understand why the director wastes their time by making South choose a permissible LA, then insists the board be played out, and finally replaces the good result that NS achieve by pains-taking defence with the "most unfavorable of all probable results".

 

Although, as in several IBLF cases, this ruling flouts my reading of the law and my sense of justice, I'm still grateful for the education :)

[blackshoe]

… this ruling flouts my reading of the law and my sense of justice…

In what way, exactly, does it do that?

[Trinidad]

This is something that you should not do:

I then carefully explained the ramifications of South's earlier UI to North, making clear that she had UI suggesting a 5C (or 5D) call and that if she made such a call and this damaged her opponents, the score would likely be adjusted.

[]

Since North, by her own admission, was attempting to bid 5C, we decided to impose that call on her for purposes of determining an adjusted score under L12. We felt that 5Cx -2 by North was both the most favorable result likely for EW and the most unfavorable at all probable for NS. We thus assigned this result for both sides.

You cannot first rule that North is not allowed to bid 5♣ and after he obeyed you later adjust the score based on a 5♣ bid.

 

I am open to several interpretations of this situation.

 

Mine is: "The fact that South holds both minors is UI. The fact that you are supposed to choose an LA that is not suggested by this UI is AI."

 

Nigel's is (correct me if I am wrong): "The fact that South holds both minors is UI. The fact that South doesn't want North to bid 5♣ is also UI. In this mess, there is probably no legal call North can make." I have a different view, but I think that Nigel's interpretation has merit too.

 

At the point when you were at the table you knew of all the irregularities that had taken place. That means that then and there you need to deal with all of them. You only dealt with the first one, said that it suggested 5♣, which therefore was not allowed, and left. When North followed your ruling and obtained a good result, you later dealt with the second UI, and told North that it was an irregularity to follow your earlier ruling.

 

I would not have a problem if you would have said at the table: "There is now so much UI. North is supposed to choose an LA not suggested by any of it. I I can imagine that this is impossible. Do the best you can and I will get back afterwards." (Nigel's interpretation).

But now you ruled only about the earlier UI (my interpretation) and after North had followed that ruling, you changed the ruling to Nigel's interpretation. One of these must be a TD error.

 

Rik

[campboy]

This is something that you should not do:

 

You cannot first rule that North is not allowed to bid 5♣ and after he obeyed you later adjust the score based on a 5♣ bid.

Well, you should not rule on what North is allowed to bid at this point; you should merely advise her of her responsibility to carefully avoid using UI. So I agree to some extent.

 

But in this case I think that it is quite right that N/S get the worse of the two possible outcomes. It is clear that without South's illegal attempt to stop North bidding 5♣, EW would have been able to defend 5♣x and would have had the opportunity to get an adjusted score if the 5♣ bid had damaged them. So NS were headed for whichever score was worse; it would be wrong to rule that South's antics can get them out of that position.

 

Now I am not saying that North has no permitted action. Bidding 5♣ is not allowed because of the UI that South intended to show the minors. If North passes (or doubles) and it works out better than bidding 5♣, though, I would rule that North has done nothing wrong, but EW have been damaged by South's irregularity (law 23, as Robin says).

[pran]

In my honest opinion the Director must never, ever during an auction request that the player in posssess of UI makes or does not make specific call(s)!

 

What he can, and should do is to inform a player in possess of UI that the chosen action(s) can, and probably will be scrutinized after the play is completed to determine whether the action "could have been suggested" by the UI and if as a result opponents have been damaged.

[helene_t]

I think it is difficult to explain things to the average club player, who knows zip about bridge ethics and is in distress because of the situation and therefore might have difficulty thinking about the issue rationally. How to translate "could have been suggested by the UI" into plain language?

 

So I think it is understandable that the TD makes it a bit more concrete. Of course he can't tell her not to bid 5♣ - she might have a 7-card club suit and think that there is no alternative to 5♣, even if partner hs a strong balanced hand. But something about "if, for example, you think that you might have doubled if you didn't know that p had minors ...." would have my sympathy. Of course, TD must be careful not to make it sound like an instruction to double. It is difficult.