awm, on Jul 11 2010, 08:26 PM, said:
That's not how I interpret the laws.
Perhaps not, but it's what they say. The laws don't say that you "may not choose from amongst logical alternatives ... (unless you had already made up your mind)"
Quote
Your interpretation creates a number of problems.
None of this is just Peachy's interpretation. It's how Laws 16 and 73 are interpreted by bridge authorities everywhere in the world.
Quote
First, it creates instances where passing UI can actually be advantageous... for example if I hesitate before making a clear penalty double, partner is no longer permitted to remove it even if normally he would.
Yes, but that's covered by the law about a hesitation that you could have known would work to your benefit. And, as Peachy says, if done deliberately it's cheating.
Quote
Second, it forces players to guess what other players would do in situations just in order to be ethical, which is a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs.
There are many areas of the game which call for good judgment. This is one of them, although it's not widely recognised as such.
Quote
Third, it creates UI in the other direction; for example RHO opens, I make a slow pass, and partner balances... now since partner is disallowed from balancing on hands that are at all close (even if he ordinarily would), I have UI that partner has an "obvious balance" created from my own hesitation!
That sounds like an argument that the Laws should be different from what they are. Possibly they should (though I don't think so), but the relevant question is what the Laws currently say.
Quote
Fourth, it creates disadvantages for "ethical" players -- suppose that in a situation I would always make call X, every player of my caliber would make call X, but because I have UI that suggests X I instead choose to "be ethical" and bid Y (mistakenly believing that "some comparable players might bid Y"). Now I obtain a bad result, whereas a "less ethical" player who simply bid what he was always going to bid (call X) benefits after a director's poll determines that Y is "not a logical alternative."
This is, again, just a matter of judgment. First of all, you work out what the logical alternatives are; then you decide which are suggested over others. That tells you which calls are legal, so now you select one of these.
Sometimes it's wise to go further, and consider whether there is a risk that a call you consider to be legal might be ruled illegal by the director or appeals committee. You might then decide to choose some other call to avoid the risk of an adverse ruling.
All of this, though, is just another bridge problem.
Quote
However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table.
Sometimes the call that you choose is deemed by the authorities to be illegal and they adjust the score. They may be right, or you may be right, but either way it doesn't mean that you're a cheat: it just means that their judgment is different from yours.
As long as you chose the call believing it to be legal, you have done nothing wrong. It's only cheating if you choose a call that you believe to be illegal, in the hope of getting away with it.
Help
