[blackshoe]

 DozyDom, on 2019-May-13, 07:27, said:

Sorry, not cheating. Breaking the laws of the game to gain an advantage over the opposition. Whoops.

And of course he knew he was doing that. Not.

[blackshoe]

 captyogi, on 2019-May-13, 20:39, said:

Now Days There is No TD Ruling and then if it Challenged it Goes to Appeal Committee.

While Giving Ruling if it is Not Straight Forward ( Like lead out of turn, bid out of turn etc. type ) then TD Consults few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and That is Final.

In this Case I was Told the Explanation Given by Panel was That the Only thing Matters is the Strong Hand of 2S Bidder which warrants 2nd Bid bid on its Own.

But in this case He Has Heard His Partner Telling the meaning to be Non Forcing, and still bids 4S.

Also Please Note that these Days People tend to Open Hands Even with Shape Even with 9/10 Points ( Whatever Allowed within CoC )

You might try capitalizing only the first word in a sentence. Makes them easier to read.

How can there be a challenge to a ruling that doesn't exist?

If a judgement ruling is final, that sounds to me like it can't be appealed. And yet this case went to an appeals committee.

The only thing that matters is not the strength of responder's hand. The only thing that matters is not that opener jumped to game. The only thing that matters is whether responder took advantage of unauthorized information. To rule on this we need to know the agreed meaning of 4!S. If, as is reported in the OP, it is some form of Blackwood, responder has no LA to correctly replying to it, and to any followup questions asked of him.
We need the entire auction. We don't have it.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2019-May-14, 09:26, said:

2♠ forcing on this auction is not mainstream in North America. I have no idea whether it might be mainstream somewhere else where I've never played.

It's hard to imagine it mainstream anywhere: what would one do with a 9-10 hcp hand of spades, put it through 2D and then rebid spades? Seems more logical to play 2S NF and perhaps 3S F1 to invite a control bid if opener has enough to explore slam.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2019-May-14, 09:41, said:

If, as is reported in the OP, it is some form of Blackwood, responder has no LA to correctly replying to it, and to any followup questions asked of him.

I think he meant that 4S was followed by Blackwood. The original post was not a model of clarity.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2019-May-14, 09:27, said:

And of course he knew he was doing that. Not.

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.

[pescetom]

 gordontd, on 2019-May-14, 10:30, said:

I think he meant that 4S was followed by Blackwood. The original post was not a model of clarity.

I too first read it as "Majorwood", but I agree it must mean that 4S was followed by RKCB.

 gordontd, on 2019-May-14, 03:12, said:

This is not true if 2S was a one-round force. In that case, 4S would show a better than minimum hand.

I agree with this too, but in that case it would seem he has the inference that opener is better than minimum with fit both as AI (partner bid 4S over my one round force) and as UI (partner considers my bid non forcing but still bid 4S). Do I read this right and is he still not allowed to take advantage of this information?

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2019-May-14, 10:47, said:

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.

But it's relevant when deciding whether someone was cheating.

[DozyDom]

 barmar, on 2019-May-14, 14:15, said:

But it's relevant when deciding whether someone was cheating.

It's a tournament with an appeals committee. There is not a single person down at the local bridge club who does not know that you aren't allowed to use things your partner says when informing your decisions. Get a grip, boyo - there is cheating and there is cheating, I'm not accusing them of collusive lead signals and encrypted cigar movements. Some people, in the heat of the moment, will break rules that they are aware exist. That's human, but it's still cheating.

[gordontd]

 pescetom, on 2019-May-14, 12:36, said:

I agree with this too, but in that case it would seem he has the inference that opener is better than minimum with fit both as AI (partner bid 4S over my one round force) and as UI (partner considers my bid non forcing but still bid 4S). Do I read this right and is he still not allowed to take advantage of this information?

Well it will affect whether or not passing is an LA, which we can only really determine by polling with the given hand and the methods that the player thought were in force, which is not entirely clear. I would have expected to find that passing is an LA, but perhaps the TD polled and found otherwise.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-May-14, 10:47, said:

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.

DozyDom asserted that the player was cheating. When I disagreed he reworded his assertion to avoid the word "cheating", but he's still asserting it's cheating. The player's intent is most definitely relevant to that assertion.

[pescetom]

 DozyDom, on 2019-May-14, 16:12, said:

Some people, in the heat of the moment, will break rules that they are aware exist. That's human, but it's still cheating.

A player who apparently does not know the meaning of his response to an opening bid is quite likely to to be unaware of some rules too. You might argue he shouldn't be playing in a tournament, but I see no reason to assume he is cheating.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2019-May-16, 05:52, said:

A player who apparently does not know the meaning of his response to an opening bid is quite likely to to be unaware of some rules too. You might argue he shouldn't be playing in a tournament, but I see no reason to assume he is cheating.

I think it's quite true that the vast majority of players don't really know or understand the rules regarding UI. For instance, most US players don't pause over jump bids (not even when the STOP was in use), and they have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.

And at the other end, "cheating" can encompass a wide spectrum of actions. There's a big difference between collusive cheating (considered the most heinous way to ruin the game) and not carefully avoiding taking advantage of UI (there's often disagreement about what the UI suggests, and therefore what you're not supposed to do). So even if you think you understand Laws 16 and 73, you might still end up violating them inadvertently.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2019-May-16, 09:14, said:

I think it's quite true that the vast majority of players don't really know or understand the rules regarding UI. For instance, most US players don't pause over jump bids (not even when the STOP was in use), and they have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-May-16, 14:19, said:

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

It's not obvious to me that one cannot expect people to follow the rules. And a player saying "oh, I wasn't paying attention and didn't notice" is not off the hook. Ignorance is not a defense.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2019-May-16, 14:19, said:

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

 blackshoe, on 2019-May-16, 15:30, said:

It's not obvious to me that one cannot expect people to follow the rules. And a player saying "oh, I wasn't paying attention and didn't notice" is not off the hook. Ignorance is not a defense.

And inattention is a violation of Law 74B1

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2019-May-16, 14:19, said:

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed.

Why not?

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2019-May-17, 08:10, said:

Why not?

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2019-May-17, 08:48, said:

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

Heh. When I was in the Navy, we used to say "want in one hand, crap in the other. See which one fills up first." Sometimes reality sucks.

[RMB1]

Why not poll to see what responder would do over 4♠ - just explaining the 2♣ opening?

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2019-May-17, 08:48, said:

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

As I've mentioned in all the other threads related the Stop card, my experience is that the Stop card makes absolutely no difference. There are players who know they're supposed to pause, and there are players who don't. The ones who know still pause, even though the Stop card is gone. The ones who don't ignored the Stop card -- if they thought anything about it at all, they thought it was just a reminder that the bid was a jump (the actual word "Stop" on the card didn't enter into their mind).

That was the basis of my question. Vampyr implied that even the players who know the rule cannot be expected to pause when there's no Stop card.