[inquiry]

ACBL, iMPS, TEAM GAME

The 2♦ bid was alerted as "other two suits" by North, who bid 2♠. It seems that South's pass of 2♠ was based on the UI associated with the incorrect alert. I do not know if their true agreement was 2♦ here as natural or as other two suits (never explored, as we failed to call the director)

First Question: When dummy shows up, should someone call the director.
Second Question: After 2♠ drifts off two, what if anything should the director award to EW?
If it matters to the ruling, 5♦ was bid and made in the other room and the non-offending side already won 13 imps on the hand

---

[RMB1]

inquiry, on 2013-June-29, 00:42, said:

First Question
When dummy shows up, should someone call director.

South should call the TD at the end of the auction and explain that the explanation of 2♦ does not match South's understanding.

The contents of dummy is evidence of misexplanation, failure to correct misinformation at the end of the auction by the declaring side, and use of UI. So, yes: defenders should call the TD.

inquiry, on 2013-June-29, 00:42, said:

Second Question: After 2♠ drifts off two, what if anything should the director award to EW?

4♠-4

[aguahombre]

Plus, educate North on ACBL alert procedure. Deviation from it caused the problem.

[benlessard]

As a director the trick is to sell it as from -13 to -14 Imps so not a big penalty

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 09:55, said:

Plus, educate North on ACBL alert procedure. Deviation from it caused the problem.

You think that if North hadn't alerted, EW probably wouldn't have asked what it means?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-June-29, 19:41, said:

You think that if North hadn't alerted, EW probably wouldn't have asked what it means?

I don't know, but I do know that in addition to not knowing what partner's bids mean, he doesn't know the Alert Procedure. It is certainly worth educating him as part of the whole ruling.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 19:48, said:

I don't know, but I do know that in addition to not knowing what partner's bids mean, he doesn't know the Alert Procedure. It is certainly worth educating him as part of the whole ruling.

That may be true. I was questioning your assertion that "deviation from it caused the problem".

A cue bid is alertable if it's natural. So from South's perspective, his bid was alertable. If North, apparently thinking that it was Michaels, correctly failed to alert, South would have UI that his partner misunderstood the bid.

So how did North's incorrect alert cause the problem, if the problem would also have been there if he had not alerted?

[blackshoe]

If their agreement was that 2♦ was natural, then the alert was not incorrect, though the explanation was. IAC, the alert did not cause a problem, the explanation did.

[Fluffy]

4♠ -4 and south gets a PP for blatant use of UI

[Cascade]

I agree a penalty should be imposed on top of any score adjustment

[Trinidad]

I agree with the AS of 4♠-4, but I don't think a penalty (other than an explanation and perhaps a warning) is necessarily such a good idea: Large amounts of players go into a "I am barred" reflex and South may well have tried to be actively ethical.

IMO you should not punish those who try to do the right thing, even if they happen to fail (because the issue is too complex for them). A "You were on the right track, but stopped short" explanation may be far more effective to reach the goal: Making a good ethical player out of South.

Rik

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2013-June-29, 01:16, said:

South should call the TD at the end of the auction and explain that the explanation of 2♦ does not match South's understanding.

Not necessarily. If NS's agreement is that it's Michaels, but South had temporarily forgotten, South has no obligation to correct the explanation.

If there's no written evidence of this agreement, it may be best to tell the opponents what has happened anyway, so as to avoid the risk of an unduly severe adjusted score. But that's a matter of pragmatism rather than law.

[campboy]

I don't think North has misunderstood the alert procedure. This 2♦ is not a cuebid, so would be alertable if it didn't show diamonds.

Quote

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

Quote

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are:
Suit bids:
3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids [...]

[blackshoe]

Were EW damaged here? If not, where is the justification for score adjustment? If so, how were they damaged? What, exactly, was the infraction? As for a PP, I agree with Rik.

OP has suggested that South's pass of 2♠ was based on UI, but that's not his call, it's the director's, and he never called the director. I think we have to look at that assertion even more suspiciously than we would at the table. Suppose, for example that the agreement really was as North explained. If South knew that when he made his cue bid, I trust there would be no thought of an infraction here. I want to ask South what he thought he was doing when he bid 2♦. I do not want to rule without an answer to that question.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-30, 08:11, said:

Suppose, for example that the agreement really was as North explained [showing 55+ in the blacks]. If South knew that when he made his cue bid, I trust there would be no thought of an infraction here.

Given that South is 3 black cards short of the requirements for a cue, and has a six card diamond suit, it seems reasonable to think that South didn't realize that 2♦ showed the blacks at the time he made the bid.

blackshoe, on 2013-June-30, 08:11, said:

I want to ask South what he thought he was doing when he bid 2♦. I do not want to rule without an answer to that question.

Sure, go ahead and ask. Your task will be easy when he says: "I tried to show my diamonds." because then we know for sure and you can rule with a clear conscience. But what if he says: "I knew that it showed the blacks, but I wanted to stir things up a little with a psyche."? Are you going to believe him? Now you do have a problem.

In practice, it works easiest to just rule ("Ah I see, you wanted to show your diamonds but had some misunderstanding over whether it was natural or showed the blacks?"). If that is not the way it was (and South really intended to psyche or something similar) he will speak up. So let them come up with the argument (of a psyche or other excuse) themselves instead of handing it to them on a platter: "Did you want to come up with an excuse yourself or do you want us to suggest one for you?".

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-30, 03:44, said:

I agree with the AS of 4♠-4, but I don't think a penalty (other than an explanation and perhaps a warning) is necessarily such a good idea: Large amounts of players go into a "I am barred" reflex and South may well have tried to be actively ethical.

IMO you should not punish those who try to do the right thing, even if they happen to fail (because the issue is too complex for them). A "You were on the right track, but stopped short" explanation may be far more effective to reach the goal: Making a good ethical player out of South.

Rik

I could not disagree more with the application of this principle to this situation. South has an obligation in law to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. Failing to raise with AKQx in a new suit introdued by partner is not carefully taking advantage of the UI. Since the laws require this avoidance in strong language - "must" - a penalty should normally be imposed when a player fails in the obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI.

You say that many players are mistaken in their belief that they are barred. Perhaps if they were more consistently penalised for their failure to avoid taking advantage then these mistaken beliefs would become less common.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2013-June-30, 11:53, said:

I could not disagree more with the application of this principle to this situation. South has an obligation in law to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. Failing to raise with AKQx in a new suit introdued by partner is not carefully taking advantage of the UI. Since the laws require this avoidance in strong language - "must" - a penalty should normally be imposed when a player fails in the obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI.

You say that many players are mistaken in their belief that they are barred. Perhaps if they were more consistently penalised for their failure to avoid taking advantage then these mistaken beliefs would become less common.

I think we agree on aim (creating ethical players), but disagree on method. For some players it would be best to penalize. For others it would be best to encourage them to do the right thing. If a player did his very best to avoid taking advantage of the UI but failed because he couldn't do better why would you punish? It is completely ineffective.

Parents of one year olds are encouraging their kids to walk, even when they fall. They do not penalize them when they are falling. Why? Is it because they are too soft on these kids? Or might it be that encouragement is more effective in reaching the goal (knowing how to walk) then punishment?

If I am happy that a player had it half right (because I expected him to get it completely wrong) I will encourage, not punish. If I am disappointed that a player had it half right (because he should have known better and gotten it completely right) I will punish, not encourage. Why? Not because I am soft or nice, but because it is the most effective way to make ethical players.

Rik

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-30, 08:11, said:

Were EW damaged here? If not, where is the justification for score adjustment? If so, how were they damaged? What, exactly, was the infraction? As for a PP, I agree with Rik.

I also agree with Rik about not assessing a PP here. As for the other questions, I would hope a TD already knows the answers. EW were damaged because, if South had correctly avoided using the UI, instead of making a feeble attempt at not using the UI. 4S-4 would be reached instead of 2S-2.

Theoretical par (or the result at the other table) on a hand has nothing to do with whether this pair at the time South committed the infraction should or should not have received a better result. The infraction was south not raising Spades, and South didn't raise Spades because he possessed UI. They get their one IMP difference, and learn something in the process.

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-30, 12:29, said:

I think we agree on aim (creating ethical players), but disagree on method. For some players it would be best to penalize. For others it would be best to encourage them to do the right thing. If a player did his very best to avoid taking advantage of the UI but failed because he couldn't do better why would you punish? It is completely ineffective.

Parents of one year olds are encouraging their kids to walk, even when they fall. They do not penalize them when they are falling. Why? Is it because they are too soft on these kids? Or might it be that encouragement is more effective in reaching the goal (knowing how to walk) then punishment?

If I am happy that a player had it half right (because I expected him to get it completely wrong) I will encourage, not punish. If I am disappointed that a player had it half right (because he should have known better and gotten it completely right) I will punish, not encourage. Why? Not because I am soft or nice, but because it is the most effective way to make ethical players.

Rik

In my view the state of ethics, which to me is simply following the rules, is very poor. Further I believe the responsibility for this lies with directors, teachers and officials who do little to promote ethical (law abiding) play.

Just yesterday we bid to 4♠, on the contested auction 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 4♠, my opponent paused after 4♠ for a considerable time after I had removed a stop card, she then passed and her partner found a double on ♠ Jx ♥ Kxxx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxx - hardly a defensive rock. If all these players get when they do not carefully avoid taking advantage of UI is the score wound back and some friendly advice then they are unlikely to change their ethics. Certainly the evidence that I see is that little has changed in this regard for years. Aside from anything else, a player who behaves in this way will not always have the score wound back and so will in the long run benefit from their unethical play. The only way to counter this benefit while the unethical play continues is to penalise frequently. Which is what seems to be required by the wording of Law 73.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-30, 11:51, said:

Given that South is 3 black cards short of the requirements for a cue, and has a six card diamond suit, it seems reasonable to think that South didn't realize that 2♦ showed the blacks at the time he made the bid.

My bad - for some reason I was thinking the cue would have showed diamonds and spades.

Trinidad, on 2013-June-30, 11:51, said:

Sure, go ahead and ask. Your task will be easy when he says: "I tried to show my diamonds." because then we know for sure and you can rule with a clear conscience. But what if he says: "I knew that it showed the blacks, but I wanted to stir things up a little with a psyche."? Are you going to believe him? Now you do have a problem.

Well, I suppose I can call him a liar. Is he armed? I don't want to get shot.

Trinidad, on 2013-June-30, 11:51, said:

In practice, it works easiest to just rule ("Ah I see, you wanted to show your diamonds but had some misunderstanding over whether it was natural or showed the blacks?"). If that is not the way it was (and South really intended to psyche or something similar) he will speak up. So let them come up with the argument (of a psyche or other excuse) themselves instead of handing it to them on a platter: "Did you want to come up with an excuse yourself or do you want us to suggest one for you?".

That's not a ruling, that's a question in search of evidence for a ruling, which is exactly what I said I wanted to do. I did not say I would ask, and I would not ask "were you psyching?" I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am.