[wuudturner]

At an ACBL sectional swiss, you hold the following big two suiter. (If it is relevant, you are a diamond LM, and partner a gold LM. Your opponents are of roughly equal caliber.)

AKJT76x
6
AJ87x
---

With everybody vulnerable, LHO deals and passes, and you are pleased to hear partner open the bidding. Of course, he bids 1♣, but even so 2♠ by you is a strong jump shift.

Partner takes out into 3♣. What is your bid? Does it make sense to bid slowly, with a forcing 3♦? This may get you to a diamond slam when that is best, or possibly even a club slam.

Now, consider that parter has alerted 2♠, as a weak jump shift. Now a simple new suit bid by you will be seen as still a weak hand, but a very distributional one. Partner might even pass. It seems the one bid that is unacceptable is a jump to slam (6♠) here, a wild shot knowing that partner thinks you have a weak hand, to prevent him stopping the auction in a low place. You cannot use an alert from partner to know that one action on your part might work out well. So the ethical action seems to me a bid of 3♦, the bid you might make had partner not alerted.

Is this logic correct? I'm asking because my teammates at the table did not object, even though one of our teammates is a certified director herself. Nobody else at their table even seemed to think something wrong had happened.

[barmar]

Are we to infer that the player actually DID bid 6♠?

I agree with your logic. A strong jump shift is a game force, so there's almost never any need to blast like that. Only the UI tells you that partner might drop you short of game or slam.

What I don't agree with is the player's choice to use the SJS in the first place, but that belongs in bidding forum, not laws.

[wuudturner]

barmar, on 2013-January-07, 11:13, said:

Are we to infer that the player actually DID bid 6♠?

I agree with your logic. A strong jump shift is a game force, so there's almost never any need to blast like that. Only the UI tells you that partner might drop you short of game or slam.

What I don't agree with is the player's choice to use the SJS in the first place, but that belongs in bidding forum, not laws.

Yes. The person with this hand then jumped to 6♠. Of course this makes (for a push.)

A comment by the person who bid it was that he was always planning on bidding a slam when partner opened, so 6♠ made sense to him.

[barmar]

wuudturner, on 2013-January-07, 11:23, said:

A comment by the person who bid it was that he was always planning on bidding a slam when partner opened, so 6♠ made sense to him.

But as we know, "I was always going to" is not necessarily a valid excuse when UI is involved. He almost certainly wasn't "always" going to jump straight to 6♠ -- 6♦ (or a grand in either suit) is also a distinct possibility, so he was most certainly planning on bidding slower.

[trevahound]

I try not to project ethics (or lack thereof) onto most decisions opps make. It's far to easy to genuinely fool ourselves. I'd supply lots of examples except that would stray into social commentary.

I would be disappointed with teammates that did not call for a director as soon as 6s hit the table after that person had made a JS that had been alerted as weak. This is clearly at the very bare minimum a situation the director should look at, and it's hard to imagine there won't be an adjustment, and I can't think of any reasonable reason for my teammates not to draw attention to this irregularity. However, if my teammates for whatever reason decided to not call even though there was a clear irregularity, then it's not my job to worry over it later. We should avoid criticizing folks for calls we weren't willing to call a director over, in my opinion.

I had a situation this reminds me of at a regional last fall. A/X swiss, our teammates are at the other table, other team averages some 7500 or so mps per player (not inexperienced), and after the match (we won handily) one of the players who had played at our table came back from comparisons furious at our teammates, for in his opinion taking advantage of a significant BIT and the UI available from it. He was at our table, not theirs, mind you, so I'm not sure how he knew how significant the BIT was (assuming even that there was one, which neither of us could know). Further, his teammates with their zillion points didn't think enough of the problem at any time to call a director -- yet this player wanted me to berate my teammates over this.

Brian Zaugg

[billw55]

wuudturner, on 2013-January-07, 11:23, said:

Yes. The person with this hand then jumped to 6♠. Of course this makes (for a push.)

A comment by the person who bid it was that he was always planning on bidding a slam when partner opened, so 6♠ made sense to him.

A diamond life master jumps from 3♣ to 6♠ when he thinks he is already in a game force? Sounds like clear BS to me.

Just because you were always bidding slam doesn't mean you were always blasting straight to it. Hell, *I* know this, and I am not a life master at all, never mind diamond!

I would adjust the score, pp him heavily, and keep his deposit if appealed.

[mycroft]

I don't like this hand for an SJS, because it has two suits we might want to play in, that aren't partner's. I'd expect some auction like 1♣-1♠; 2♣-2♦; whatever - and hope to be able to get a heart cue (I can't imagine exclusion blackwood works in partner's 6-card suit often enough to play it). I might just blast 6♦ the second time, and hope partner realizes that the club ace is likely to be useless (or at MPs, that the opponents don't and I can make the overtrick).

But that's not the player's judgement, so it's irrelevant to the ruling. Absolutely 3♦ is an LA by someone who knows he's set a game force, it has a potential downside to blasting slam (it might get passed), and 6♠ is a *terrible* bid (when spades goes down and diamonds makes, you're gambling -11 or -13 to gain +2) that at least won't get passed in a partscore - that a strong player would never make if he knew partner knew we were in a game force. So, clearly we attempt to adjust.

To where is the question; and I'm going to have to poll players with the auction to 3♦ as it was in the mind of the explainer to see if passing is a possibility. If it is, then there we are. If not, it's likely to get to 6♠ anyway (need to see all the hands); in which case a GLM or a DLM is going to get a PP for blatant use of UI. Technically it could be wrong, but it would only be a PP(Warning) if I changed +1430 to +170 in a swiss; that should be punishment enough.

[blackshoe]

trevahound, on 2013-January-07, 12:45, said:

yet this player wanted me to berate my teammates over this.

A simple one word response to this is appropriate: "no".

[Cascade]

Quote

If not, it's likely to get to 6♠ anyway (need to see all the hands); in which case a GLM or a DLM is going to get a PP for blatant use of UI. Technically it could be wrong, but it would only be a PP(Warning) if I changed +1430 to +170 in a swiss; that should be punishment enough.

I don't see why the class of player matters in assessing a penalty. The law is the same for all players and a violation should be equally penalized. I think we are far to precious in trying to not upset someone and this causes much bigger problems down the track possibly even including the current case where a diamond or a gold LM thinks that it is acceptable to blatantly use UI.

Imagine a teams match of a weak team versus a strong team and the same UI was available at both tables and was illegally and identically used at both tables. Would you really feel justified in penalising the strong player but not the weak player?

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-January-07, 14:27, said:

To where is the question; and I'm going to have to poll players with the auction to 3♦ as it was in the mind of the explainer to see if passing is a possibility. If it is, then there we are. If not, it's likely to get to 6♠ anyway (need to see all the hands); in which case a GLM or a DLM is going to get a PP for blatant use of UI. Technically it could be wrong, but it would only be a PP(Warning) if I changed +1430 to +170 in a swiss; that should be punishment enough.

IMO if the player rates a PP for blatant use of UI, he rates it whether the score gets adjusted or not. Anyone who has been around long enough to accumulate that many monster points has been around long enough to know better than to pull this stunt. Besides, the score adjustment is to redress damage to the NOS. It's not punishment, even if the player views it as such.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2013-January-07, 14:27, said:

If not, it's likely to get to 6♠ anyway (need to see all the hands); in which case a GLM or a DLM is going to get a PP for blatant use of UI. Technically it could be wrong, but it would only be a PP(Warning) if I changed +1430 to +170 in a swiss; that should be punishment enough.

Cascade, on 2013-January-07, 15:42, said:

I don't see why the class of player matters in assessing a penalty. The law is the same for all players and a violation should be equally penalized. I think we are far to precious in trying to not upset someone and this causes much bigger problems down the track possibly even including the current case where a diamond or a gold LM thinks that it is acceptable to blatantly use UI.

We don't (unfortunately) put much stress on the ethics of the game or the Laws on UI in teaching; and many people don't know it (and many more are quite convinced that following the laws is a mug's game, and not doing it at worst returns them to where they were had they done it, so why not?) As a result, newer players catch an education from me, because they didn't "know". Now they do. Someone gets to 2500 for GLM, I assume it either is because they're very good (in which case, they'd better not be pulling this crap or they're going to have trouble in the expert world) or they're 50 points/year x 50 years, in which case, they've been around long enough to know better. Either way, for them it's blatant intent to avoid potential problems from following the Laws, where for newer players it's "oh, partner thinks I have a weak hand. How do I survive?" without (m)any of the ethical implications.

It's a matter of intent and knowledge, and very yes, one where the experts get hit harder than Mr. and Mrs. LOL. I assume that the newer players just don't know; the GLMs know and don't care. Don't know gets education; don't care gets punishment, as education didn't work.

I do agree that we are far too precious about passing out penalties - or actually doing ethical education. Were we better with the carrot, I'd feel more comfortable wielding a bigger stick.

Quote

Imagine a teams match of a weak team versus a strong team and the same UI was available at both tables and was illegally and identically used at both tables. Would you really feel justified in penalising the strong player but not the weak player?

Abso-fricking-lutely. Imagine a teams match where a weak team and a strong team get to 6♠, cold on a straightforward heart-club squeeze, both going down. Would you really feel justified in carefully showing how the squeeze works and explaining how to see it to the weak player, but "you missed *that* squeeze? I know you learned the game today, but what time today?" to the expert? Same thing - the expert *knows* what he did. Intent matters in punishment; we try to write the Laws so it doesn't matter in ruling.

blackshoe, on 2013-January-07, 15:46, said:

IMO if the player rates a PP for blatant use of UI, he rates it whether the score gets adjusted or not. Anyone who has been around long enough to accumulate that many monster points has been around long enough to know better than to pull this stunt. Besides, the score adjustment is to redress damage to the NOS. It's not punishment, even if the player views it as such.

"Technically, it could be wrong." I wonder who I wrote that line for? :-) In real life, the GLM that gets +170 will gripe about it enough that the embarrassment it causes is it's own reward, and probably more of a punishment than a few IMPs.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2013-January-07, 15:42, said:

I don't see why the class of player matters in assessing a penalty.

It matters because experienced players are expected to know better, so they deserve punishment more. If an inexperienced player acts like this, it should be treated as a teaching opportunity, not necessarily a punishment opportunity.

[pigpenz]

boy there is UI
board could be thrown out and procedural penalty against offending side -3 imps
not much difference than the actual result which was a push, but there was UI on the hand
and that has to be addressed!

[barmar]

You can't throw out a board because of UI. You adjust the score and perhaps give a PP.

[bluejak]

3♦ is the obvious bid: 6♠ is illegal, unauthorised panic, and should be penalised with a sizable PP if made by an experienced player.

pigpenz, on 2013-January-11, 11:37, said:

board could be thrown out and procedural penalty against offending side -3 imps

Not legally.

[aguahombre]

rare that I + David, but deserved even if IBLF is his baby. Maybe a World record for the 6 plusses to anyone; but, Bill earned them.

Oops. Might have sounded snide; but David and Ed are the real Mods of this group of fora. And Mods don't normally get plusses.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-February-10, 20:50

[ArtK78]

The jump to 6♠ is outrageous. One of the most extreme examples of taking advantage of UI that I have seen presented in these fora.

If I were the TD in this case, I would adjust the score if I found any excuse to do so, impose a procedural penalty, and refer the matter to conduct and ethics for further action.

trevahound, on 2013-January-07, 12:45, said:

I had a situation this reminds me of at a regional last fall. A/X swiss, our teammates are at the other table, other team averages some 7500 or so mps per player (not inexperienced), and after the match (we won handily) one of the players who had played at our table came back from comparisons furious at our teammates, for in his opinion taking advantage of a significant BIT and the UI available from it. He was at our table, not theirs, mind you, so I'm not sure how he knew how significant the BIT was (assuming even that there was one, which neither of us could know). Further, his teammates with their zillion points didn't think enough of the problem at any time to call a director -- yet this player wanted me to berate my teammates over this.

Brian Zaugg

If one of the members of the opposing team came to my table after the match and started accusing one of my teammates (or me, for that matter) of taking advantage of a BIT or UI, I would have him before a conduct and ethics committee so quickly it would make his head spin. Talk about improper behavior!