Start by understanding that I am not qualified to direct at

tournaments. In my opinion, the laws should be adhered to at all ACBL

sanctioned games. This is particularly true for national, regional and

sectional tournaments.  I believe the issue is how strictly the laws need to

be enforced. The question then becomes how rigorously the laws should be

enforced. For experienced players, my opinion, this is to the letter of the law. 

I think that we are dealing with two separate issues here. Issue number one is the director's ruling when there had been unauthorized information.  I agree that club games should be friendly and relaxed and newer players should be made to feel welcome. Many less experienced players have no idea what UI is and certainly don't use it intentionally. However, once a director has been called to the table for an infraction, I think that it is his/her responsibility to make a proper ruling unless there is a gray area where it may be possible to be subjective. I don't think that the director should be expected to make an incorrect ruling... I think that the club having a policy which permits players to glance at the convention card  may eliminate some miscommunication and hesitation problems. I don't see any negative to that solution.

Issue number two is the the people who make frivolous director calls at club games. It certainly makes the game unpleasant and intimidating for novice players. I think that more experienced players should overlook minor infractions and try to educate their opponents when they make these mistakes instead of immediately yelling "Director". Sure, we all like to win, but is that the way we should go about winning?  We are losing people as it is, and we certainly don't want to drive away eager new players. I think that the individual clubs should encourage a friendlier environment and more welcoming attitude. I've played against some of the top players in the world at tournaments and they are the most likely to overlook and least likely to call the directors for petty nonsense. We could all learn from them.

John Dickenson

A lot of the narrative focused on the partner who receives UI and what if anything the director should do about it after the fact.  We need to also consider the person who conveys UI, and educate them.  For instance in a competitive auction where our side is bidding hearts and the opponents spades, it is reasonable to expect and anticipate a bid by the opponents of 4S over our side's 4H.  Decide in advance whether you are going to double, take the push to 5H, or pass the decision to partner. Don't go "into the tank" and create an issue for partner with your hesitation. The same applies to part score battles - decide in advance if you are going to take the push to the 3 level and don't put partner in a bad spot by a slow pass. We should all strive to make calls in tempo and eliminate the slow passes, also the lightning passes.

One of my pet peeves is a player, not on lead, asking questions about the auction before his/her final pass.  One should pass and let partner place his/her lead face down on the table and then ask questions about the auction (of course, if the player genuinely is considering an action other than pass, it is proper to ask before the auction ends).  If I open a spade and partner bids 3D which I alert, and then I bid 4S, pass, pass and now my RHO starts asking what the 3D means, then passes and I get a diamond lead, you bet I am going to call the director if the diamond lead was suggested by UI.  When I try to educate people on this, they often say that they can ask on their turn to call. To which I say, "can does not imply ought" and you ought to avoid putting your partner in a difficult situation by waiting for his/her lead and then maybe seeing dummy will eliminate the need for you to ask questions!  

Linda O'Malley

The recent exchange regarding Rui Marques' article regarding unauthorized information made me pause, as hesitations at a tournament level or even a club level are an entirely different entity when they involve newcomers to the game of bridge. Newcomers often need a few moments to run through the conventions they have learned, to remind themselves of responses. 

Take for example the following bidding, assuming the newcomer is sitting South: West opens 1H, North bids 2H, East bids 3C. The newcomer sitting South is going to hesitate now! First off, South has to process her partner's cue bid. She may have just learned several different cue bids and needs some time to go through the different options: she needs to realize that it's an overcall not a response, figure out that it's a Michaels cuebid, and then assume that the five-card minor is most likely diamonds. The hesitation is not a signal regarding possible point strength or card support but rather a methodical process to breakdown the bidding. 

Another scenario goes as follows: South opens 1H, North bids 2C, South bids 2N, and North jumps to 4C. The hesitation that follows is understandable considering these are newcomers doing the bidding. Is the responder bidding Gerber or jumping to show length and strength in clubs? Newcomers don't have the experience yet to definitively know and often second-guess themselves or their partners. Additional time is necessary to process the bidding and play, and directors should understand and acknowledge this. 

 

Oftentimes, hesitations by newcomers actually give information to the opponents rather than the partner. The declarer leads a low card from the dummy, and her RHO pauses. Aha! thinks the declarer. The RHO probably has the king is debating about whether to play it.  The declarer is much more confident in playing the finesse thanks to the opponent's hesitation. Perhaps knowing that the time newcomers spend staring at the bidding or the play of cards is rarely about unauthorized information and may even help the opponents, may help directors realize, both at the tournament and club level, that they should allow some leeway with people just learning the game of bridge. 

Real Fradette

This is a very complex and difficult subject and in my experience as a director for more than 40 years, overall UI rulings at club games should be based mostly on the game level.  Certainly there will be many more situations or infractions occurring at the beginners or novice games than at open or tournament games.  

I would agree with Ralph on most of what he said with the exception of referring to the convention card during the auction. Anyone learning to play or playing with a new partner should be able to understand what systems are being played and agreed to beforehand. Bridge is a game of remembering many things so the convention card is just one of them.

The Rules of Bridge as written and followed by directors is a very detailed and complex subject. There are many rulings that the average player does not know or understand.  Possibly, in the future, we could suggest that the teachers within our organization consider giving a lesson or two on the basic subject of UI and associated rulings.  This might help prevent some of the infractions occurring especially in our novice club games.