[jeffford76]

Scoring: MP

---

1H (X) 2H* (3S)
4H (4S) 5H (X)
AP

* alerted, not asked, but systemically showing less than a constructive raise

2H bidder forgot the system, but knows what he's shown once the alert happens as he plays transfers here with several partners (including this one ). 5HX makes. Do you adjust? Is P a LA instead of 5H, and if not, is 5H suggested over X?

[FrancesHinden]

The 2H bidder has UI from partner's alert. Let's say for the sake of argument that UI is 'useful' in that it reminds him that he had agreed to play transfers and that he's shown a poor raise.

He now knows he has a much better hand than partner expects.

That demonstrably suggests doing something other than passing over 4S.

If I have already shown a constructive raise pass is certainly a LA. Partner's 4H bid didn't invite me to bid again.

The only interesting question is whether bidding - rather than doubling - is demonstrably suggested. I think it is. What I would want to do, but can't, is make a forcing pass. As that's not available, I think both bidding and doubling are demonstrably suggested.

[Echognome]

Tough to add anything insightful to what Frances wrote. So, I'll simply concur with her.

[Jlall]

Definitely adjust, and give a PP for blatant cheating.

[OleBerg]

Echognome, on Aug 5 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Tough to add anything insightful to what Frances wrote.  So, I'll simply concur with her.

Me too.

Whether to give a PP would depend on the players level. If not to high level, and if time permitted, I would give a lecture, and then PP if it happened again.

We must not forget, that there are people out there, playing this game, that are incapable of fathoming even the simplest reasoning. A good TL will make an effort to make them understand, so that they can enjoy the game, without ruining it for others.

[Trinidad]

Jlall, on Aug 5 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

Definitely adjust, and give a PP for blatant cheating.

You know that you just got yourself a PP for using the "c word"?

Seriously, for a whole lot of players (of all levels) it is really hard to deal with UI ethically. Not being able to deal with UI does not mean that you are cheating.

And yes, I fully agree with Frances, and I would adjust. But I have seen way too many UI cases where the offending side didn't have a clue what they had done wrong to accuse any UI user of cheating, let alone blatant cheating.

I have seen beginners and top players go wrong there. I remember one case where I ruled that a top player had used UI. He wanted to appeal saying: "Don't take it personal, but your ruling was absolute bogus". Since it was late and the tournament would continue the next morning (and since I more or less knew what was going to happen the next morning, I told him: "fair enough, do you mind if we do that tomorrow morning?". That was fine with him. The next morning, he comes to me and, as I had expected, asks me to please forget about the appeal.

But he went on to add: "This was one of the most blatant forms of use of UI that I have ever seen. And I did it myself, and at the time that I did it I was 100% convinced that it was perfectly OK." I believe the guy 100%. Away from the table things look a lot different.

Rik