Treatment to new players about serious UI

[MinorKid]

Hi guys, i dont know this forms should be post here or on the novice forums/basic ruling. It is so fundamental that simple answer is needed.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s52hakqj52dt84c52&e=skqjt9h96d96ct987&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p("So%20many%20spades!")1d4s(Bid%20after%20gaining%20UI)]266|200[/hv]

 

It happened at tiny local club playing MP pairs.

East-West were a novice, completely new pair. North-South were 4 month-partnerships SAYC level.

 

The sequence of events on that board was like that.

1. West whispered "so many spades!" before putting up a Pass card (UI).

2. North opened 1♦.

3. East ask West "how many spades do u have?" (UI). West replied 5 by extend all fingers from her hand (UI).

4. East overcalled 4♠.

5. South called the director.

 

How should the ruling be? :(

 

In particular, south urged that 4♠ bid to be cancelled to a pass and west must pass for one round after his bid. Can the director approve his recommendation?

OR the director just let the bidding to continue and adjust the result.

 

–------------------------ Edit: 30/6 ADD

At the actual ruling the TD changed 4S into 1S , and it is allowed to continue. EW was warned not to transmit such UI again or could be ruled under L24 , L26 , L37.

[gordontd]

Let the bidding continue, adjust the result if necessary, and give a PP despite them being novices, to make absolutely clear how unacceptable it is to deliberately pass information in this way.

[MinorKid]

South: Continue after 4♠ !? Are you kidding !?

[sanst]

I agree with Gordon, but I would also tell S that I’m quite capable of dealing with this, and any other, situation myself. Players should not tell the TD what to do. In soccer such behaviour might result in a yellow card, in bridge you can give a PP to obnoxious players like SB.

[sanst]

South: Continue after 4♠ !? Are you kidding !?

No and yes, in reverse order.

[pescetom]

How exactly should the score be adjusted? Say that most tables made 4H on the other line but some did not, and no other pairs are real beginners.

[sanst]

How exactly should the score be adjusted? Say that most tables made 4H on the other line but some did not, and no other pairs are real beginners.

We can’t answer that question. You need all hands and knowledge of the NS system at least. If a poll is not possible, the TD should decide.

[axman]

Hi guys, i dont know this forms should be post here or on the novice forums/basic ruling. It is so fundamental that simple answer is needed.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s52hakqj52dt84c52&e=skqjt9h96d96ct987&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p("So%20many%20spades!")1d4s(Bid%20after%20gaining%20UI)]266|200[/hv]

 

It happened at tiny local club playing MP pairs.

East-West were a novice, completely new pair. North-South were 4 month-partnerships SAYC level.

 

The sequence of events on that board was like that.

1. West whispered "so many spades!" before putting up a Pass card (UI).

2. North opened 1♦.

3. East ask West "how many spades do u have?" (UI). West replied 5 by extend all fingers from her hand (UI).

4. East overcalled 4♠.

5. South called the director.

 

How should the ruling be? :(

 

In particular, south urged that 4♠ bid to be cancelled to a pass and west must pass for one round after his bid. Can the director approve his recommendation?

OR the director just let the bidding to continue and adjust the result.

 

 

Concerning the TD's bedside manner….

 

When the TD is not particularly seasoned events might devolve into the players 'suggesting rulings' such as apparently happened here. An air of competence likely heads it off at the pass. If an occasion does devolve, then if it can be explained that such suggestions frequently make the situation worse (as in this case**), and that it is better to wait for a ruling before appealing, things will be better in the short and long run.

 

** south's interjection conveyed inferences not sanctioned by L73.

 

In making his ruling the TD should recount his finding of facts. For instance-

 

It is agreed that:-

1. West communicated about his spade holding, but not by bidding which infracts L73

2. E communicated interest about west's spade holding, but not by bidding which infracts L73

3. west communicated his count of spades, but not by bidding which infracts L73.

 

These infractions are serious and as provided by L90 EW's score will be reduced one point for each.

 

Those communications are UI and L16 requires a player where inferences from UI that demonstrably suggest an action over another, to take a logical alternative if available. So, the hand shall continue and if at the conclusion NS think that L16 was infracted, call me back and it will be examined and a determination will be made.

[ahydra]

South's proposed "ruling" is utter nonsense, of course. He should be gently reminded that the TD (alone) decides the ruling according to the book.

 

As for EW, I don't think they should get a PP if they're complete novices. But the TD should warn them sternly, and advise that they must communicate solely through bids and plays, not through any spoken words, gestures, etc. or indeed their tempo (e.g. they can't define a slow double as being weaker than a fast double). If the STOP card is used in your jurisdiction then the TD should advise about that as well (e.g. the classic STOP-2C = weak two in clubs, no STOP then 2C = 23+).

 

The TD will also advise to be called back at the end of the hand and adjust the score to restore equity to NS. And explain to the whole table that this is how the UI law works, and that any use of UI will always result in a score adjustment and may well result in a PP on top.

 

ahydra

[FelicityR]

Aside from the ruling, players should recognise that the TD is in charge and his/her word stands. Actually directing the TD towards a decision (even if the player is a TD themselves) is very bad etiquette.

 

Novices or not, I also believe - just my opinion - that the TD should take both West and East aside and have a quiet word in their ears and inform them in no uncertain terms that this is not how bridge is played and they are cheating, and if it happens again they will be banned from the club.

[pran]

Aside from the ruling, players should recognise that the TD is in charge and his/her word stands. Actually directing the TD towards a decision (even if the player is a TD themselves) is very bad etiquette.

 

Novices or not, I also believe - just my opinion - that the TD should take both West and East aside and have a quiet word in their ears and inform them in no uncertain terms that this is not how bridge is played and they are cheating, and if it happens again they will be banned from the club.

After which you will probably never see them again (as bridge players).

 

What is needed is some friendly education (no penalty threats!) and assurance that they are indeed welcome to (learn and) play bridge in the club.

[FelicityR]

After which you will probably never see them again (as bridge players).

 

What is needed is some friendly education (no penalty threats!) and assurance that they are indeed welcome to (learn and) play bridge in the club.

 

Which begs the question how and why were they allowed to join a table in a club without prior knowledge and instruction about the basic rules of the game, even as novices? I'm sure if you transgressed the basic rules of any other sport you would be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is unacceptable.

[pescetom]

Which begs the question how and why were they allowed to join a table in a club without prior knowledge and instruction about the basic rules of the game, even as novices? I'm sure if you transgressed the basic rules of any other sport you would be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is unacceptable.

 

Probably some teacher or authority at the club decided they were ready to play in a club tournament and it's that someone who deserves some stern words in private.

[weejonnie]

FWIW a warning IS a procedural penalty - we don't have to dock them Matchpoints - and many a more experienced pair don't understand responsibilities under 73C or 16B.

 

As to what to do. Well the correct procedure at the table has already been discussed (allow play to continue and ask to be called back if damage due to UI) - however I think the TD should sit down on his haunches and point out that information can only be communicated by the legal calls and plays, and that, no matter how desirous they might be of helping, players should call the director whenever an irregularity occurs and let the matter be sorted in his capable hands.

[pran]

Probably some teacher or authority at the club decided they were ready to play in a club tournament and it's that someone who deserves some stern words in private.

 

Honestly: Where do you draw the line?

 

My guess (and experience) is that very few bridge players know The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017 complete, but we still allow them to play.

 

Which of the laws concerning irregularities will you require a beginner to be familiar with before trying to play bridge?

 

We do not (I hope) teach beginners a single law in the book like they do in primary schools, we teach them the very basics sufficient for them to play something that resembles bridge, and then we encourage them to overcome their anxiousness, splash into their first real event and learn from experience.

 

When they are then welcomed and met with friendliness they will discover the joy with bridge and return.

 

If they are met with reluctance they will simply disappear ("this is nothing for me").

[pescetom]

 

Which of the laws concerning irregularities will you require a beginner to be familiar with before trying to play bridge?

 

 

Law 73.

They don't need to know the number or the precise text, but they must understand that bridge is not a game of secret messages and that the only way to communicate with partner is through choice of calls and choice of plays.

It's a very simple concept but also quite unexpected to beginners, so it is essential it is explained immediately.

 

We do not (I hope) teach beginners a single law in the book like they do in primary schools, we teach them the very basics sufficient for them to play something that resembles bridge, and then we encourage them to overcome their anxiousness, splash into their first real event and learn from experience.

 

When they are then welcomed and met with friendliness they will discover the joy with bridge and return.

 

If they are met with reluctance they will simply disappear ("this is nothing for me").

 

I agree with you here, but legal and illegal information exchange is an important part of the basics.

If someone drops them into a tournament without understanding it then they will get a frosty reception from opponents (however tolerant the TD may be) and like you say they may disappear due to resentment ("why did they treat us like that??").

[barmar]

Honestly: Where do you draw the line?

At the rules that govern the basic structure of the game, i.e. the simple procedural things that distinguish bridge from poker, rummy, and to a lesser extent, whist, hearts, and spades.

 

These beginners probably just came out of a class. During supervised play there, it's common to ask the instructor for help, and lots of UI is generated and tolerated. When letting them into the regular game, someone should have mentioned that this is not acceptable outside of class settings. But if this didn't happen the mistake is understandable, but still impacts the game, and this is the time when they need to learn. A warning is appropriate.

[Vampyr]

Probably some teacher or authority at the club decided they were ready to play in a club tournament and it's that someone who deserves some stern words in private.

 

Most clubs I am familiar with allow visitors without vetting them in advance.

[pran]

At the rules that govern the basic structure of the game, i.e. the simple procedural things that distinguish bridge from poker, rummy, and to a lesser extent, whist, hearts, and spades.

 

These beginners probably just came out of a class. During supervised play there, it's common to ask the instructor for help, and lots of UI is generated and tolerated. When letting them into the regular game, someone should have mentioned that this is not acceptable outside of class settings. But if this didn't happen the mistake is understandable, but still impacts the game, and this is the time when they need to learn. A warning is appropriate.

And what they need if you want them to come back for another bridge session is help and guidance in a friendly manner, not reprimands.

 

The other players must no doubt have been fully aware that these players were novices. Treat them as such, and don't throw the law book at them at the first opportunity. That will only scare them away.

[FelicityR]

Most clubs I am familiar with allow visitors without vetting them in advance.

 

That is probably very, very true. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh throwing the rule book at the novices, but something procedural and official beyond that one board needed to be done immediately. What if the same or a similar sequence of events happened at another board later in the evening against different opponents? I can understand their opponents being ruffled, perhaps disconcerted by what has happened, and whilst it is easy to say it's just one board and the best thing is to forget about it and carry on, that's easier said than done.

 

Maybe to some extent North was at fault for opening the bidding as he/she should have summoned the tournament director as soon as West whispered "So many spades" and then passed. The whole incident might have been nipped in the bud. But I do wonder how myself and a partner would have reacted if East/West had provided UI in this manner at my club? I am sure few players have come across such a blatant breach as this. It sounds like something out of a Marx Brothers' film :)

[Ranmit]

 

The sequence of events on that board was like that.

1. West whispered "so many spades!" before putting up a Pass card (UI).

2. North opened 1♦.

3. East ask West "how many spades do u have?" (UI). West replied 5 by extend all fingers from her hand (UI).

4. East overcalled 4♠.

5. South called the director.

 

 

I was visualizing this exchange and laughed way more than I should have. :lol:

[pran]

That is probably very, very true. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh throwing the rule book at the novices, but something procedural and official beyond that one board needed to be done immediately. What if the same or a similar sequence of events happened at another board later in the evening against different opponents? I can understand their opponents being ruffled, perhaps disconcerted by what has happened, and whilst it is easy to say it's just one board and the best thing is to forget about it and carry on, that's easier said than done.

 

Maybe to some extent North was at fault for opening the bidding as he/she should have summoned the tournament director as soon as West whispered "So many spades" and then passed. The whole incident might have been nipped in the bud. But I do wonder how myself and a partner would have reacted if East/West had provided UI in this manner at my club? I am sure few players have come across such a blatant breach as this. It sounds like something out of a Marx Brothers' film :)

Not bothering about who should have called the Director and when:

 

Once the Director has arrived at the table and learned why he was called, realizing that E/W were novices he should (in a friendly way) have told them about extraneous remarks, why they are unacceptable and the consequences of receiving UI.

 

He should then as best he could try to save a reasonable result on the board. To achieve this he could for instance have asked East what he would have bid without the UI he received from West. I am convinced that a good Director and with sensible players could have discussed the situation and agreed upon a reasonable auction, contract and/or result.

 

Of course this is not according to the laws, but in situations like this (and at the apparent level of competition) I consider satisfaction between the players (with the result that they continue playing bridge) far more important that strictly applying the laws with the result that you never see the players again.

[Ranmit]

Some years back when I was in college, just learning bridge, the local club organized a tournament and gave our college some wildcard spots, to 'encourage bridge among the younger generation'.

We played there and did make obvious UI mistakes against the experienced players - though nothing quite so brazen as this one - but we readily accepted the UI as errors on our part and the suggested resolutions. (The UI was a reactionary gasp & clicking of the tongue after realizing that a very wrong bid had just been made :P . Understanding the rule and thereafter bidding the alternative not suggested by the UI, we ended in a part score in what was a potential slam).

Playing in a tournament with good quality opponents, even though we finished expectedly near the bottom, definitely increased our interest in the game.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree with ahydra and pran on not giving PP or strong warnings here, but rather a clear explanation of the rules - and see if they accept it sincerely and in the right spirit. If they dont, then of course one should tone up the harshness.

[blackshoe]

explain to the whole table that this is how the UI law works, and that any use of UI will always result in a score adjustment and may well result in a PP on top.

With the last part of that, the PP, I agree. However, use of UI will result in a score adjustment only if the NOS are damaged.

[blackshoe]

Of course this is not according to the laws,

I'm surprised that a competent director would even consider giving a ruling that is not according to the laws. :(