[ahydra]

EBU

I was asked to rule on this UI case from the club last night. North opened 2S announced by partner as "strong". After East passed, North (not South!) said "no, it's weak". EW called the TD.

I offered East the chance to retract his pass, and explained to South that he must avoid using the UI, i.e. pretend that the 2S is still strong. EW called me back after the hand saying that S had simply bid 4S - he had something like AQxx K A10xx Qxxx - and they felt he hadn't avoided using the UI.

I agreed and ruled that as most people would bid 2S-4S and make 10 tricks, I would adjust the score to 5S-1, as South should look for a slam but stop when he finds two missing aces. EW however weren't happy as declarer had somehow only managed 9 tricks in 4S, so the net result was that NS "got away" with using the UI.

EW are advanced players, NS significantly weaker.

Did I get this right? From what I've seen in other threads, one generally doesn't use the play in one contract as evidence of how the play might go in some other contract.

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2016-August-05, 01:34, said:

EBU

I was asked to rule on this UI case from the club last night. North opened 2S announced by partner as "strong". After East passed, North (not South!) said "no, it's weak". EW called the TD.

I offered East the chance to retract his pass, and explained to South that he must avoid using the UI, i.e. pretend that the 2S is still strong. EW called me back after the hand saying that S had simply bid 4S - he had something like AQxx K A10xx Qxxx - and they felt he hadn't avoided using the UI.

I agreed and ruled that as most people would bid 2S-4S and make 10 tricks, I would adjust the score to 5S-1, as South should look for a slam but stop when he finds two missing aces. EW however weren't happy as declarer had somehow only managed 9 tricks in 4S, so the net result was that NS "got away" with using the UI.

EW are advanced players, NS significantly weaker.

Did I get this right? From what I've seen in other threads, one generally doesn't use the play in one contract as evidence of how the play might go in some other contract.

ahydra

We could need som more information here, but frankly I don't understand why you didn't rule 5♠-2 ?

I see no reason to disregard the fact that he made 9 tricks in 4♠ and assume that he would make 10 in 5♠.

[billw55]

pran, on 2016-August-05, 01:41, said:

We could need som more information here, but frankly I don't understand why you didn't rule 5♠-2 ?

I see no reason to disregard the fact that he made 9 tricks in 4♠ and assume that he would make 10 in 5♠.

True enough.

Also, if they went down in a makeable contract, was there damage? i.e. did -50 get any matchpoints? (assuming MPs at club that is)

[ggwhiz]

Is the proper sequence not dummy comes down, the e/w objection is noted and the hand is played out with you returning to make your ruling after?

After that, you have a result of 4♠ -1 adjusted to 5♠ -2 with a gentle lecture on the use of UI. The fact that other declarers would win 10 tricks is irrelevant if this declarer took 9.

[Zelandakh]

The normal response with this hand would be 3♠ but that presumably would lead to a better result for the OS. If looking for a slam in a different way, one approach might be a 4♥ splinter. Is it possible that that could lead to a cue auction where the missing key cards did not come to light? In a club game, 5♠-2 does seem to be a safe result that ought not to upset anyone too badly. I think the most important task is to educate North though, making sure that they understand that they will receive a penalty should they repeat the offence.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-05, 07:48, said:

The normal response with this hand would be 3♠ but that presumably would lead to a better result for the OS. If looking for a slam in a different way, one approach might be a 4♥ splinter. Is it possible that that could lead to a cue auction where the missing key cards did not come to light? In a club game, 5♠-2 does seem to be a safe result that ought not to upset anyone too badly. I think the most important task is to educate North though, making sure that they understand that they will receive a penalty should they repeat the offence.

"Better result for the OS" is the wrong criterion. It leads to a worse result for the NOS. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I suppose.

Personally, I dislike the idea that a ruling in a club game should be any different to a ruling in a tournament. It's the same laws, it should be the same ruling. I'm also not enamored of the idea of a "safe" ruling. It's part of our job to keep folks reasonably happy, yes, but it's also part of our job to make the best rulings we can in terms of the laws and regulations. So for me the question is not "is 5♠-2 a 'safe' ruling?" it's "is 5♠-2 the correct ruling?"

Agree that it's important that North understand the consequences of future infractions of this kind.

[ahydra]

To answer questions so far:

NS -50 was worth 9/16 matchpoints for EW. -100 instead would be worth one extra matchpoint for EW, which would not change the overall results.

As mentioned in the OP, the NS pair in question were quite weak, so almost certainly wouldn't consider advanced methods like playing 2S (strong)-3S as SI rather than INV, or splinters.

ahydra

[mycroft]

While agreeing (as usual when we're talking Bridge Law) with blackshoe, I have a couple of other comments.

First, if the automatic action would have ended up with a worse score for the NOS than what happened, then there's no damage (in this case, if everybody would bid 3♠ with this monster opposite a strong 2, then there was no damage, as North has an autopass, and 3♠= scores better than 4♠-1). If there is a reasonable action (Logical Alternative) that would lead to a better score, even if the Most Logical Alternative would not, then we adjust (in this case, it is likely that *some* strong 2 players would just wheel out Ole Black, and end up in 5). Sometimes we adjust to the same score (say 4♠W= instead of 4♠E=) to make clear to everyone that there was an infraction and you shouldn't do that, but this time it just happened to luck out for OS.

Second, it is sometimes relevant that we will adjust to a different contract with the same score. I don't think it applies here, but if the other contract *requires* a different line of play, and that just happens to give them enough tricks to get the same score, well then. An example with this would be "in 4♠, they took the 90% line to make, and it didn't work: -1. In 5♠ that line would be senseless - there's no way to get 11 tricks - but there's a 20% line for 11. That doesn't work *either*, but it does lead to 10 tricks on the particular lie of the cards. Adjust to 5♠-1 (and prepare for appeal)." The alternative would be to adjust to 5♠-2, and prepare for appeal from the OS who will point out that the line for 10 tricks is senseless needing 11!

I've certainly given a "no damage" ruling where UI caused the OS to stop in 5 making (safety play to make), where the LA was 6, but *that would make as well on the lie of the cards*.

So, certainly we should look at the play in the disallowed contract to see if it would be reasonable (or, in this case, similarly unreasonable) in the adjusted contract. If the game is "everybody will make 4 in 4, but they made 3 because...", it's quite likely that it is reasonable to take the same mis-line in 5 for -2. But it's not automatic.

E-W, it happens that people "get away with" using UI. It happens all the time. (but note, they might be right that this case isn't one of them).
N-S, you *can't* do this - and when you do, you have to avoid taking advantage of it, even if it leads to a bad score. People with more experience (and knowledge of the Law) would be penalized simply for doing it, in addition to the score adjustment. Oh, by the way, now that we've had this discussion, you now have "more experience (and knowledge of the Law)".

[jallerton]

ahydra, on 2016-August-05, 01:34, said:

Did I get this right? From what I've seen in other threads, one generally doesn't use the play in one contract as evidence of how the play might go in some other contract.

ahydra

The play in 4♠ is certainly evidence of how many tricks that might have been made in 5♠, 6♠ or 3♠; but it is not definitive. The opening lead might be different on a different auction (maybe even it ends up in the same contract!); declarer might adopt a different line of play with a different trick target, or the subsequent defence might be different.

Like Zelandakh, I would have bid 3♠ (positive) over an Acol 2♠, but a poll of South's peers would probably reveal that 4NT (which most play as RKCB/Blackwood over either meaning of 2♠)is a logical alternative. Depending on how you judge the probability of making 5♠ with that South hand opposite a weak 2, the UI arguably makes 3♠ more attractive than 4NT. In the putative auction we assume that South adopts the logical alternative least demonstrably suggested by the UI, so it seems entirely reasonable to adjust to 5♠ on the auction 2♠-4NT-['ace' showing response]-5♠ making the requisite number of tricks (quite likely to be 9 tricks, but not necessarily; it might even be right to weight the number of tricks!).

[pran]

mycroft, on 2016-August-05, 09:31, said:

[...]
Adjust to 5♠-1 (and prepare for appeal).

The alternative would be to adjust to 5♠-2, and prepare for appeal from the OS who will point out that the line for 10 tricks is senseless needing 11!
[...]

I remember from when being trained as Director we were instructed:

If you must expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select then see to it that the appeal will come from the offending side!

And I think that is a rather sound principle!

(In other words: If you are in doubt then rule in favour of the non-offending side.)

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2016-August-05, 16:36, said:

I remember from when being trained as Director we were instructed:

If you must expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select then see to it that the appeal will come from the offending side!

And I think that is a rather sound principle!

(In other words: If you are in doubt then rule in favour of the non-offending side.)

I think it is possible to expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select, and also to not be in doubt that you are giving the correct one. I would prefer directors to make the ruling they think is correct.

[pran]

pran, on 2016-August-05, 16:36, said:

I remember from when being trained as Director we were instructed:

If you must expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select then see to it that the appeal will come from the offending side!

And I think that is a rather sound principle!

(In other words: If you are in doubt then rule in favour of the non-offending side.)

jeffford76, on 2016-August-08, 16:40, said:

I think it is possible to expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select, and also to not be in doubt that you are giving the correct one. I would prefer directors to make the ruling they think is correct.

I fear that you didn't exactly read what I wrote and therefore misunderstood?