[kenrexford]

A weird situation may have developed yesterday, and I am wondering if this is simply a rub of the green problem or not.

I opened 2♥. LHO for some reason either did not see me open or did not realize that I opened 2♥ and not 1♥. In any event, he grabbed the stop card and then put it back, commenting that he did not see something. Some sort of vague, "I did not see..." and then trailed off. He then bid 2♠.

The auction proceeded normally, somewhat. My partner passed, RHO has a strong hand with J-10 tight in spades and jumped to 4♠ (no other remotely appealing options), and the contract ended up 4♠ making an overtrick. RHO clearly took no inference, so no additional TD call. (I called at the point of the hitching and comments.)

In retrospect, however, a potential problem seems to have occurred. I don't recall LHO's hand, but he apparently had a weak two in spades. With that hand, he might not have been strong enough to make a simple overcall of 2♥ and might have passed. Had he passed, the auction might have ended some other way. Maybe partner preemptively raises; maybe partner psyches 2♠; anything might have happened.

Consider first nefarious actors. LHO could intentionally grab the stop card, intentionally comment, and then bid 2♠ with that weak hand. If partner has the strong hand and bids game, all is well. If partner has a tweener hand and goes light, all is well is no one calls the TD. So, a bad actor could use this ruse to enable a two-way overcall. (Bid with full strength, hitch and comment with a lighter 6-bagger hand.) I am in no way claiming that my LHO was a bad actor. In fact, he was a rather nice guy and just had an "oops."

But, this did get me thinking. It seems somewhat problematic to simply allow an overcall in this situation without anything more than direction to my RHO to not take inference. It seems like a run-of-the-green situation, and we might have scored very well had RHO overbid the hand. But, the fact that this maneuver could be used for bad purposes because of the obvious info exchanged suggests to me that some other dynamic might be at play here.

Am I missing something, or was this simply as I felt at the time -- a rub-of-the-green thing?

[aibZ]

This is a fairly standard UI situation - if RHO had a logical alternative to the "winning action" - passing if light - the TD will adjust the score, since the UI definitely suggested that the bidder had a poor hand for his actions.

[blackshoe]

In general, it is a bad idea to assume your opponents are cheats, absent very clear evidence. Which you do not have here.

[kenrexford]

I don't think anyone is yet answering the question.

First, the UI problem is obvious, as I noted. The question is whether there is any problem with a person bidding 2♠ over 2♥ if the hand would not qualify for a 2♠ overcall but would qualify as a 2♠ weak JUMP overcall, as the situation is one where a person could take advantage of the rules.

Second, I thought I was very precise that my actual LHO was nothing but a gentleman who simply made a mistake. Rather, the question concerned the hypothetical problem. I was trying to go out of my way to state that LHO was not in any way "cheating."

I mean, to make it simpler, consider if you knew that SOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON did this routinely. Johnny club player, for example, has a tendency to be "shocked" by an opening bid or call that he "missed," which changes his calls in this situation from a series of an incredibly aggressive non-jumps to simply "forced" bidding when he "thought" he was jumping (to show a weaker hand). Such a tendency, if it occurred, would suggest a problem. Of course, that tendency could not be established unless someone was keeping track of this.

In contrast, perhaps there is some weird and obscure (to me) part of the Rules that is somehow relevant without a case history being established. Maybe not. It just seemed that our side ended up harmed because LHO might have been able to make a call that otherwise he would not have made, and often some equitable rule somewhere might address this. If not, fine. That's what I thought anyway.

[MickyB]

I cannot imagine that bidding 3H was not an LA to bidding 4S on the hand described.

Having pulled out the stop card, your LHO can still make any call that he chooses, he has simply given UI to his partner.

Once he chooses to overcall 2S, and has given UI to his partner that his hand is (sub-)minimum with a sixth spade, his partner is worse-placed than if he had just bid 2S without transmitting UI. As it happens, the UI [arguably] doesn't hinder his partner on this board, but that doesn't mean that you have been damaged by the UI being passed - you have simply lost out because LHO chose to make an aggressive bid.

[awm]

There are a number of cases in the laws where a person who deliberately cheats can gain an advantage, provided no one realizes that his action may have been deliberate. The one I see a lot is making insufficient bids and then correcting them to the same strain (but with slightly different implications about strength).

The general view seems to be that this is okay, provided that there are also procedures for punishing deliberate cheaters severely. So I think the answer is, yes pulling this trick may help your opponents... but if there is evidence they did so on purpose they can be banned.

The UI issue is also more delicate than you describe; usually there is a logical alternative to raising partner from 2♠ to 4♠ on doubleton for example, and the knowledge that partner has six (skip bid) and very minimum values (skip bid) makes this more appealing than either trying for slam or looking for an alternate strain.

[aguahombre]

awm, on 2011-April-04, 12:56, said:

The UI issue is also more delicate than you describe; usually there is a logical alternative to raising partner from 2♠ to 4♠ on doubleton for example, and the knowledge that partner has six (skip bid) and very minimum values (skip bid) makes this more appealing than either trying for slam or looking for an alternate strain.

Leading to two valid points:

1--LHO might not have done anything with the intent to create UI, but RHO seems to have used that UI effectively with a strong hand and only two trumps in support.
2--You may well have been damaged on this hand. Just because the opps reached the same strain and level as the field did, does not mean they should have at your table without the UI. Strong hand, opposite one of my partner's 2S overcalls, and I would probably still be bidding as this post was beginning.

[ggwhiz]

Rub of the Green this time. Lho isn't obliged to pass and bar his partner.

I suspect that rho just made his best ethical attempt. Probably should bid 3♥, hear 3♠ and then raise to 4♠ but all roads lead to......

I think the UI is a given and should always be assumed to be an oops. It's all about rho who has the onus not to take advantage and redress will happen if they do whether in good OR bad faith IF damage can be demonstrated.

If there is no damage but an attempt to take advantage, you can choose to call the Director anyway to explain the obligations and get rho on record. Methinks they have substantial memory for bad actors and talk to each other in the bar after the game.

[iviehoff]

ggwhiz, on 2011-April-04, 13:47, said:

Rub of the Green this time. Lho isn't obliged to pass and bar his partner.

This is a common misunderstanding. Possession of Unauthorised Information (UI) does not oblige you to pass, it obliges you to avoid taking advantage of the Unauthorised Information. Frequently UI is in the form of a hesitation, which often suggests the hesitator is stronger than his call does. Which is why this misunderstanding arises - most often the legal action when you have UI that partner is strong for his call is to pass. But there are many other cases - double vs bid, raise one level vs raise two levels, etc.

In the present case, the UI suggests that the bidder is weaker than his bid does. So this is a case where the possessor of UI must stretch to avoid catering for his partner being unusually weak, quite the opposite of being required to pass. Pass, in fact, would be an unethical call in this situation. The important question here is whether the player is strong enough that ethically he ought to investigate slam opposite this 2S bid, and if so whether he would be likely to end up higher than 5S and go off. In most of the world we can address this with a weighted ruling, but in ACBL you have to choose a single outcome for an adjustment. Whether there is actually any damage depends upon whether a 6S contract is sufficiently likely if they took an ethical approach to the auction.

There is no accusation of cheating in saying that an opponent has taken undue advantage of UI. It is sometimes difficult to make the ethical choice when in possession of UI. We sometimes disagree over what it is. A ruling to adjust the score simply says that you failed to accurately calculate the ethical action. Blatant abuse of UI should also result in a produral penalty.

This thread would be better in the Laws and Rulings forum, which covers off-line and on-line bridge.

[Free]

Looks indeed like a free run. When there's UI and pass is a LA for partner, then he'll pass knowing you have a weaker hand than usual. And when no UI was transmitted, he can do whatever he wants.

There are many known cases where you can cheat with the stop card. Simply using or not can show a difference. Nobody will notice it anyway, or they'll jokingly ask if there's a difference in using the stop card without investigating it thoroughly.

[gordontd]

kenrexford, on 2011-April-04, 12:01, said:

I mean, to make it simpler, consider if you knew that SOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON did this routinely. Johnny club player, for example, has a tendency to be "shocked" by an opening bid or call that he "missed," which changes his calls in this situation from a series of an incredibly aggressive non-jumps to simply "forced" bidding when he "thought" he was jumping (to show a weaker hand).

In what way would he gain from doing this, rather than just making aggressive overcalls?

[TylerE]

Because he can decide when he's "shocked".

[han]

I agree with all that Mickyb said. Also, three cheers for screens.

[Bbradley62]

This is what Recorder forms are for. Submitting one out says "It's likely that opps are completely innocent, but if others fill out similar forms, then maybe not."

[RMB1]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-02, 09:54, said:

This is what Recorder forms are for. Submitting one out says "It's likely that opps are completely innocent, but if others fill out similar forms, then maybe not."

In my experience such forms mean: "It's likely that opponents are out-and-out cheats, but if no one else fills out similar forms, then maybe they get away with it."

[ArtK78]

I agree that this is what recorder forms are for. You do not accuse LHO of cheating by filing a recorder form. However, if it turns out that this is not an isolated occurrence, it will eventually come to the attention of the Recorder.

[ggwhiz]

The recorder procedure has it's uses.

My favorite is when my pard psyched 1nt in 3rd and it worked. The opps SCREAMED for the Director who ruled no fielding, no redress.

They then SCREAMED for a recorder form and when it arrived, demanded my partners name.

He gave them mine.

[blackshoe]

"Here's your recorder form, and here's your 25% of a top disciplinary penalty. Knock off the screaming."