[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Aug 7 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

In the context of a situation where you have UI suggesting that you double, which will presumably result in a better score than if you choose the logical alternative of pass, you say you should double, and take your lumps in score adjustment. I (and the laws, and the interpreters of the laws) say you should pass and take your lumps in the poor table result you're likely to get.

Well, DD was clear on this...but if it's wrong, then I blame my source. I still claim that, when I'm directing I'd rather have somebody bid close to normally and then call the director after it's over than bid something nutty in hopes of not getting an adjustment, and I have discussed this with directors more senior than I. However, I'm backing off- without a written source to back me up, I'm not going to push this any more.

Quote

I never said that, and the insinuation is insulting.

Yeah, I caught that later. That's why I wrote in my next post...

"All conversation here is hypothetical only...I notice that use 'you' in this a lot, and I'm not trying to claim Stephen, or anybody else in this thread, actually does this."

I have no idea what you do. I will say that I have seen some ruinous actions from people who think that the 'field' has some very strange things that they will consider. And when these anti-field things actually work, the screaming's pretty damn loud.

[awm]

We had a long argument about the UI policy in the past, and it seems to be repeating itself here. As best I can tell, the main points are:

(1) If I end up in a situation where I am deciding between more than one alternative and it seems fairly close, if I have unauthorized information (from partner's failure to alert for example), I must select the alternative which is not suggested by the UI. This is fairly straightforward interpretation of law.

(2) The trickier situation is where I am certain that, without the UI, I would always bid in a particular way. If everyone would make a particular bid (or at least every player of comparable skill level to myself would make a particular bid) then obviously I should be free to make that call. The problematic situation is where I know that I, personally, would always bid a particular way, but it's also the case that "the field" includes some players who would make a different call. The question is whether I'm responsible as a player to figure out "what other people would do" and to avoid an action that I would always take without the UI because some other people would consider a different action as a logical alternative. My viewpoint on this is that it's never a player's responsibility to guess what other people would do in his or her situation, but that a director (or committee) unable to read a player's mind, may have to adjust a score based on the opinions of a players peers. The alternate view is that since "logical alternative" is defined in terms of what other players do, that it is in fact a player's responsibility to guess what other players will do and take this into account. This does lead to a rather strange situation where, without UI, I might always take action A but in presence of UI I am forced to take action B, and would allow extremely unethical players to use "reverse UI" to their advantage (for example, make a slow penalty double when doubling is clear, thereby barring partner from pulling the slow double even if partner would normally pull since of course not pulling is virtually always a logical alternative for some players).

[blackshoe]

It's not that all your peers would chose the same option, but that some lare percentage of them would. In the EBU it's 70%, in the ACBL it's 75. But it's really a guesstimate, unless the TD takes a poll of the player's peers (polling those who aren't his peers won't work).

I was once told that where the laws use "logical alternative" what they really mean is "plausible alternative for the class of player involved".

[helene_t]

awm, on Aug 7 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

The problematic situation is where I know that I, personally, would always bid a particular way, but it's also the case that "the field" includes some players who would make a different call. The question is whether I'm responsible as a player to figure out "what other people would do" and to avoid an action that I would always take without the UI because some other people would consider a different action as a logical alternative. My viewpoint on this is that it's never a player's responsibility to guess what other people would do in his or her situation, but that a director (or committee) unable to read a player's mind, may have to adjust a score based on the opinions of a players peers.

I think that's right. But in practice, as a player who received UI, it's in your interest to avoid an adjustment because an adjustment will almost always be against you.

So it's not unethical to do what you would normally do even if some peers might do something different. In fact if the TD adjusts on the basis of a peer poll he's not implying that you did something unethical. After all, you might not have a clue about what your peers would do, or you might have a flawed clue. OTOH if you know that some peers would do what was not suggested by the UI it's in your own interest to do what is not suggested by the UI.

The TD just gives the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt.

[mycroft]

Note: "you" is generic throughout here.

Remember, it's not just the "class of player", it's also "playing the same system and style". I don't care how good a player you are, what alternatives you have after a 2/1 1 Spade opening, auction, and subsequent hesitation are not the same as what someone playing Precision would do or think about after the same opening and auction - and neither of them have the same alternatives as an EHAA 1S opener (which is Goren Sound, if not Roth-Stone sound as a minimum, and totally unlimited (well, okay, 35 or so - sometimes it's just right to open a "I have 12 tricks" 6S call) as a maximum).

I have more than once brought to the attention of the directors, when they suggested that xxx was an alternative, that given our system, it isn't, because partner can't have the hand they thought the UI suggests - as he would have done something different in the auction. Sometimes it takes a bit of proving, but I've almost always convinced them. Of course, I also almost never disagree with the judgement of the TD in these cases - whether I am the recipient of the UI, the transmitter, or a member of the NOS. I follow the Laws as best I can, call the TD to back or reverse my judgment, and assume that they have it right.

I also believe something that other TDs say - it's easy to convince yourself that you'd always have done what the UI suggests. You can firmly believe it. I, as the TD in the case, can completely believe that you believe it. That's one of the reasons the law is written not as "ignore the UI", but "carefully avoid using the UI" - it is natural to be convinced that you were going to do the right thing anyway, and that you aren't influenced, when in fact you are. It's harder to convince yourself that you have "carefully avoided" using the UI - and that gets the average bridge player that knows the Laws back to normal.

Michael.