What is your verdict?

[blackshoe]

I think this is because there are two Laws that relate to action after receiving UI from partner.

 

Law 16B1 is phrased relatively objectively, in terms of LAs and what is demonstrably suggested. LAs are defined in terms of the player's peers, not the specific player.

 

But Law 73C just says that the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI". This is often paraphrased as "bend over backwards".

I wasn't flexible enough to do that fifty years ago. I am considerably less flexible now. :P

 

The problem is that 73C is easy for players to understand, while 16B1 is complicated, so 73C is how most of them understand their obligations. When they get ruled against, it seems like an accusation that they didn't take the care that they were supposed to.

That's because the TD doesn't explain the law (16B1) under which he is ruling when he makes his ruling. This is so common that actually doing it right and explaining the relevant law is viewed as bizarre and, by many players, a waste of time. It's not. It's the right thing to do.

[barmar]

That's because the TD doesn't explain the law (16B1) under which he is ruling when he makes his ruling. This is so common that actually doing it right and explaining the relevant law is viewed as bizarre and, by many players, a waste of time. It's not. It's the right thing to do.

Explaining it won't make it any more understandable. That's why no one understands why "I was always going to..." doesn't work.

 

I've often given advice that players should not try to figure out what their 16B1 limitations are -- it's just too hard to do in the heat of play, especially if you also want to maintain proper tempo. Can most people really put themselves objectively in the shoes of their peers, considering all the LAs, rather than thinking that what they were going to do is obviously the only one?

 

So instead I recommend that they just try to follow 73C, and do their best to pretend they didn't get the UI. In cases where this is consistent with 16B1, they're fine. If not, the TD may rule against them.

 

Now this is where they're supposed to understand that the ruling is not an accusation of trying to get away with something, any more than the revoke penalty is. But people aren't always rational, and it feels wrong.

[blackshoe]

So instead I recommend that they just try to follow 73C, and do their best to pretend they didn't get the UI. In cases where this is consistent with 16B1, they're fine. If not, the TD may rule against them.

'Pretend you didn't get the UI' is IMO the wrong instruction, as that's not what 73C says. Players should just ask themselves 'might making the call I want to make be construed as having taken advantage of UI?'

 

Now this is where they're supposed to understand that the ruling is not an accusation of trying to get away with something, any more than the revoke penalty is. But people aren't always rational, and it feels wrong.

'People aren't always rational'. Yeah, you got that right. :D

 

Perhaps we should read

[The Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director.

to the entire field at the beginning of every session and as part of every ruling until they accept that rulings are not accusations. :P

 

I can envision this conversation after a quite ordinary UI ruling and score adjustment:

 

Player: I don't like being accused of cheating.

Director: If I thought you were cheating, you'd be headed for a disciplinary committee hearing.

 

:o :)

[DaveB]

Players should just ask themselves 'might making the call I want to make be construed as having taken advantage of UI?'

 

Not sure that that is the right question either.

Take an auction 1♠ Pass 3♠ Pass where 3♠ is invitational and slow.

Now Pass MIGHT be the suggested action and 4♠ MIGHT be the suggested action, but you have to do something.

 

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

[Trinidad]

Not sure that that is the right question either.

Take an auction 1♠ Pass 3♠ Pass where 3♠ is invitational and slow.

Now Pass MIGHT be the suggested action and 4♠ MIGHT be the suggested action, but you have to do something.

 

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

No, neither pass, nor 4♠ is the suggested action. It is not true that they might be suggested. Neither one of them is.

 

Partner's pause might be caused by partner considering a GF raise and it might be caused by partner considering a simple raise.

 

But the fact that partner's pause might be caused by A or B doesn't mean that this pause might suggest pass or might suggest 4♠. The pause itself does not suggest pass over 4♠ or the other way around*. Only if partner, in addition to the pause, would put on his "I am overbidding"-face or his "I am underbidding"-face then the UI is suggesting something.

 

Rik

 

* But we need to keep the case simple and only consider 4♠ and pass.

[blackshoe]

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

Not according to the law.

[Zelandakh]

North had three messages he could convey over 6♥:

1. I want to defend: double

2. I want to play slam: bid

3. I am interested in slam but don't want to make the decision: pass

Sorry Mike but I think you are betraying your level here. Do you really believe that a club partnership that does not understand Law 16 and is unsure about the forcing nature of 5♠ has a solid understanding of forcing passes in an auction of this type? Your logic is firmly based on the assumption that the pair have a level of understanding somewhere within your ballpark and I would suggest that the evidence strongly contradicts that.