[mich-b]

Lets assume the following has happened :
During a slam going auction by your opps , LHO paused for a long time and signed off , but RHO still raised to slam.
You call the director , and the facts are agreed , and the TD tells you to continue play. You see RHO's hand in dummy , and it becomes obvious (to you) that passing was surely a LA , and his raise may have been based on his partner's slow signoff.
Anyway , declarer goes down in his slam and you enter +100 on your scorecard.
Now , my question is : Would you leave it at that ? or would you still pursue the issue and file some kind of complaint against RHO for (what you think was) a blatant use of UI? Does it matter who are your opps ? or if you know them ?

[blackshoe]

What matters is probably the venue. National championship? I'd probably want it recorded. Local tournament or club game? Probably a waste of time. YMMV.

[Siegmund]

I would hope that after the director had all the facts, he didn't just say "play on", but gave the UI-users an explanation of what they'd done / warning about it. Part of his job is making the offenders less likely to offend again in the future.

Given they already have a bad result, I wouldn't expect anything further to be done unless they already were habitual offenders (and directors usually know who those are a lot better than the recorder does.)

[gnasher]

I move onto the next board.

It's not my responsibility to enforce the rules, but if it were, I would remember the opening paragraph of the Laws, which reads "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where nonoffenders may otherwise be damaged."

[jschafer]

Is this the 6♣ hand?

[mfa1010]

I would also move on. What gnasher said. And it is not my responsibility either to educate the opponents.

[mich-b]

jschafer, on 2010-December-28, 04:44, said:

Is this the 6♣ hand?

My post was inspired by the 6♣ hand (well done , jschafer ) , but I did not mention the hand intentionally , because I did not want to get here into the discussion of whether UI was used there or not.
My question here intentionally focused on a hypothetical , obvious UI, case, because I wanted to see if people think that trying to use UI is an offense in itself and should be punished regardless of whether it brought the offender good result or not.

[barmar]

If the offenders are habitual, and the opponents generally "call the cops" on them, they should learn the error of their ways due to all the times their good results get taken away. I don't think there's much point in doing something in this case where it backfired.

[mycroft]

I say "play on", because at the time I'm not going to look at the hand (unless it's dummy, of course - note, not "going to be dummy", actually on the table), and then tell them what I think - if "it's okay", then the opponents know declarer has her bid and some; if not, what can I do now?

I do tend to prefix it with "well, thinking is allowed, but it puts partner under some restrictions, and she can't make a call suggested by the think if there's an alternative that isn't, that's reasonable. We're going to assume that's the case;..." and end with "call me back if you think there was use of UI." - note, not damage from it, but use. Frequently, I come back (by chance) to find that they did use UI, it hurt them, and so no bother; yes, that does make it less likely for me to educate.

If I do get called back in this situation, I will be told "no damage, but..." and I will prefix my education (should it be warranted) with "the problem with making this call is that you can't win. You either go down and get a bad score, or you make, and it gets rolled back for a less bad score."