There's UI and then there's UI

[nige1]

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 :)

In what way, exactly, does it do that?

The gist of an answer: I've already posted my tentative interpretation of the rules:

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.

Unfortunately, among other faults, Bridge-rules are too sophisticated to understand.

 

In intervening posts, there are different interpretations of the legal issues. I find the later inconsistency as disturbing as the early apparent consistency in (what I judge to be) the wrong ruling.

 

In simple cases, with agreed facts, a just law should produce rulings that are more comprehensible and more consistent.

 

IMO, the fault is with the rules, rather than with directors -- except in so far as directors fail to clamour for simplification and clarity.

[pran]

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?

Well, that is one of the things a director is trained to do, and I (for one) have little problem telling the player that "I cannot say what you may do or what you may not do, but you must be aware that it is your own responsibility to avoid any suspicion of (possibly unconciously) having let the UI influence your action".

 

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.

It might seem understandable, but it is definitely not acceptable to name any specific action with a notion that it is allowed or not allowed. At this time any action is allowed, subject to a possible later rectification.

[barmar]

Well, that is one of the things a director is trained to do, and I (for one) have little problem telling the player that "I cannot say what you may do or what you may not do, but you must be aware that it is your own responsibility to avoid any suspicion of (possibly unconciously) having let the UI influence your action".

 

I don't remember getting any such training when I took the ACBL club director course a decade or so ago. Part of the class was on the Laws, but I think it was mostly about how to rule, not how to explain things to inexperienced players. And most of this was about the mechanical rulings for common infractions like like revokes and LOOT.

 

I think they just assumed that if the TD understood things, they'd be able to explain it to the players.

[blackshoe]

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).

The way I read the laws, in effect North is "allowed" to make whatever call he likes, but if he chooses a "prohibited" call, the TD may adjust the score. Words in quotes because a literal reading is that North cannot bid clubs - which to me implies that if the TD sees him do so, the TD should do something about it right then and there, which as we know is not the correct TD procedure. Because of this conundrum I think the law is poorly worded, but I don't have a better wording. :(

[pran]

The way I read the laws, in effect North is "allowed" to make whatever call he likes, but if he chooses a "prohibited" call, the TD may adjust the score. Words in quotes because a literal reading is that North cannot bid clubs - which to me implies that if the TD sees him do so, the TD should do something about it right then and there, which as we know is not the correct TD procedure. Because of this conundrum I think the law is poorly worded, but I don't have a better wording. :(

Well,

I haven't looked it up right now, but I believe the laws use the clauses: "could have been suggested by the UI" and "if NOS was damaged" then the Director "shall adjust the score".

 

Now, there is no way the Director can reliably assess the situation, and in particular whether there is damage, until the board has been completed, so I think we have to stick with the understanding that a player who is in possession of UI may still make whatever call and/or play he likes, but subject to subsequent adjustment of the resulting score if the required conditions for such rectification are found to exist.

[campboy]

The way I read the laws, in effect North is "allowed" to make whatever call he likes, but if he chooses a "prohibited" call, the TD may adjust the score. Words in quotes because a literal reading is that North cannot bid clubs - which to me implies that if the TD sees him do so, the TD should do something about it right then and there, which as we know is not the correct TD procedure.

No, it isn't correct TD procedure. If the TD observes an irregularity, he has to rectify it within the correction period (81C3); in this case he does that by waiting until the end of the hand, and awarding an adjusted score if appropriate, as pran says.

[blackshoe]

Well,

I haven't looked it up right now, but I believe the laws use the clauses: "could have been suggested by the UI" and "if NOS was damaged" then the Director "shall adjust the score".

 

Now, there is no way the Director can reliably assess the situation, and in particular whether there is damage, until the board has been completed, so I think we have to stick with the understanding that a player who is in possession of UI may still make whatever call and/or play he likes, but subject to subsequent adjustment of the resulting score if the required conditions for such rectification are found to exist.

 

 

No, it isn't correct TD procedure. If the TD observes an irregularity, he has to rectify it within the correction period (81C3); in this case he does that by waiting until the end of the hand, and awarding an adjusted score if appropriate, as pran says.

 

Note that I did not say that directors should stop a player from making certain calls, or should literally roll the auction back if a player does that. All I said is that the laws in this area are poorly worded. I said that because the wording leads to players at the table complaining to the director that "he can't do that!" when the auction isn't even over yet, and to directors, in discussing UI cases saying much the same thing, when the fact is that he (the player with UI) can "do that", it's just that he might well get an adverse score adjustment if he does. I suppose the experienced directors reading these forums already know all that, but what of the inexperienced, or those who aren't directors at all? Really, those are the people these forums are for.

[Trinidad]

Well,

I haven't looked it up right now, but I believe the laws use the clauses: "could have been suggested by the UI" and "if NOS was damaged" then the Director "shall adjust the score".

 

Now, there is no way the Director can reliably assess the situation, and in particular whether there is damage, until the board has been completed, so I think we have to stick with the understanding that a player who is in possession of UI may still make whatever call and/or play he likes, but subject to subsequent adjustment of the resulting score if the required conditions for such rectification are found to exist.

No. A player who is in possession of UI may not make whatever call and/or play he likes. Law 16A1 clearly states that the [partner of the] player may not... etc. There is nothing remotely unclear about that: It is forbidden to choose an action that could ... etc.

 

What is different about UI cases, is that the TD is specifically instructed not to act until the board is over. So, the TD is not allowed to stop the player from committing this irregularity (which is common for most irregularities and he cannot rule on it there and then.

 

Rik

[Coelacanth]

No. A player who is in possession of UI may not make whatever call and/or play he likes. Law 16A1 clearly states that the [partner of the] player may not... etc. There is nothing remotely unclear about that: It is forbidden to choose an action that could ... etc.

 

What is different about UI cases, is that the TD is specifically instructed not to act until the board is over. So, the TD is not allowed to stop the player from committing this irregularity (which is common for most irregularities and he cannot rule on it there and then.

 

Rik

 

So much for posting this under "simple rulings".

 

I want to make clear at this point that on my first visit to the table, I did not tell North that she could not bid 5C. I told her that she had UI that suggested 5C, and that if she chose that call over a less-successful LA and this damaged her opponents, there could be a score adjustment.

 

There's been some suggestion in this thread that perhaps double would be the only LA not suggested by either instance of UI. (UI1 says to bid 5C and not pass or double; UI2 says to pass and not bid or double). The reality is that double was never going to be a LA for this particular North. Even if she believed that her partner held 16-18 balanced, there was no way she was going to double an opponent who bid 4S all by himself at IMPs. I doubt double ever even occurred to her. Nor did 4NT, whatever that would have meant.

[pran]

So much for posting this under "simple rulings".

 

I want to make clear at this point that on my first visit to the table, I did not tell North that she could not bid 5C. I told her that she had UI that suggested 5C, and that if she chose that call over a less-successful LA and this damaged her opponents, there could be a score adjustment.

 

There's been some suggestion in this thread that perhaps double would be the only LA not suggested by either instance of UI. (UI1 says to bid 5C and not pass or double; UI2 says to pass and not bid or double). The reality is that double was never going to be a LA for this particular North. Even if she believed that her partner held 16-18 balanced, there was no way she was going to double an opponent who bid 4S all by himself at IMPs. I doubt double ever even occurred to her. Nor did 4NT, whatever that would have meant.

 

Well done by you.

 

But I do not accept your remark that the UI suggested bidding 5C. This is IMHO an improper remark by the director, it is not for him (at this time) to specify what actions "could be suggested" and what actions "could not".

 

The player must select his/her action at his/her own responsibility only knowing that (s)he is under UI restraints but not the possible outcome of such restraints.

[blackshoe]

Well done by you.

 

But I do not accept your remark that the UI suggested bidding 5C. This is IMHO an improper remark by the director, it is not for him (at this time) to specify what actions "could be suggested" and what actions "could not".

 

The player must select his/her action at his/her own responsibility only knowing that (s)he is under UI restraints but not the possible outcome of such restraints.

Possible outcome, i.e., "you might get the score adjusted" is something players are entitled to know. Which calls are constrained they're not.

[Bbradley62]

Gonna tell us what North held?

[nige1]

There's been some suggestion in this thread that perhaps double would be the only LA not suggested by either instance of UI. (UI1 says to bid 5C and not pass or double; UI2 says to pass and not bid or double). The reality is that double was never going to be a LA for this particular North. Even if she believed that her partner held 16-18 balanced, there was no way she was going to double an opponent who bid 4S all by himself at IMPs. I doubt double ever even occurred to her. Nor did 4NT, whatever that would have meant.

For this North, since double is out of the question, it must be hard to judge what are LAs and what UI might suggest (if anything). IMO, searching for peers of such a player is likely to be futile. In any case, IMO, the director should just poll players roughly of the same standard as the average player in the tournament (but explain relevant partnership understandings). Thus, unless a systemic agreement precludes a penalty double in this context, it would be an LA candidate.

[Zelandakh]

If North has a hand in which clubs is their longest suit and you judge that for them X and 4NT are not LAs and ban them from bidding 5♣, just how exactly are they meant to proceed to avoid an adverse ruling? It seems to me that you can rule that the table result stands or TD error but ruling that North should have bid 5♣ is ridiculous.

 

I would also like to know the relative experience levels of the players at the table. It is clear that North is inexperienced - what about the other 3 players? If one or more of these players has a lot of experience and is also aware of North's inexperience then they should know better than not to call the TD. If South was also inexperienced and not E-W (and E-W know this) then they should also know enough to have the TD explain the UI rules to their opponents, and not doing so is certainly something they could have known would benefit them after the (probably very dubious) 4♠ call.

 

I think the time has come to see the hands, not only North but also West and South. Did West really bid 4♠ specifically to give N-S a UI problem knowing that they did not have the knowledge to deal with this? Was it perhaps even a SEWOG? And does South really have a hand that would want to avoid a 5♣ contract?

 

Finally, any ruling that involves 2 separate infractions is almost never "simple". The Laws are just not very good at dealing with this in general.

[Coelacanth]

Gonna tell us what North held?

North was roughly 3433 with 9 or 10 HCP. About what you'd expect for a raise of partner's 'strong' NT to 3NT.

 

East had a very shapely hand; I think he was 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors. South had a normal unusual 2NT: 1255 and about 8 HCP.

[c_corgi]

...

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.

...

 

I think that is the crux of it. What if South had called the director after West's pass but before North reached towards 5C? Would that be:

1) an antic to get N/S out of a hole; or

2) a legitimate - or even obligatory - action to prevent an irregularity?

 

If it would be (2), I would be more inclined to suggest to South this is what should have been done rather than invoke L23.