Is this ruling correct?

[twcho]

I have posted the following hand in the law and regulation forum but I would like to seek some other opinion too.

 

MP, Both, I was sitting east holding: QJxxx QTx x QTxx

 

South, the dealer, open 1NT (15-17). North respond 2NT, alerted. Now south bid 3♦ and the bidding come back to me.

 

I asked what is 2NT and was explained that it is ♦ suit. I then asked whether it can show invitaional hand. North's answer was yes and south has to bid 3♣ to show a better opening hand then north can decide whether to go to game. So in short, what I felt at this moment was that North could have weak or at best invitational value.

 

Since we play heavy trap after strong NT. Partner can have a very good hand when passing over 1NT albeit he may take some action if he really gets one after the 3♦ bid by south.

 

I tranced for quite some time before finally passing the 3♦ bid and had said sorry to opp's that I have to take time to decide whether to balance or not (it is MP and time is tight).

 

The whole hand being:

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s64hj876dkt8765c8&w=sat3ha54da32cj743&e=sqj752hqt2d9cqt52&s=sk98hk93dqj4cak96]399|300|Scoring: MP

W N E S

- - - 1NT

P 2NT P 3♦

P P P[/hv]

 

My partner lead ♣4 and subsequently, declarer misguessed the ♥ position and went down 1. He then doubted why I took so long to pass the hand with such minimal value and asked so many questions. And these had misled him in playing the hand. He called director and everything was reported to the director and the fact was agreed by all players.

 

Later, director came back to us and told us that my action has misled the declarer so the result was corrected to just made. He added the comment that I shouldn't say anything during my trance.

 

I was really upset by the ruling. Is that any part in the law stating that weak hand can't ask question and can't think? And you can judge from the hand that 3♠ is on for us.

 

Do you agree with the ruling?

 

Tommy

[SoTired]

I tranced for quite some time before finally passing the 3♦ bid and had said sorry to opp's that I have to take time to decide whether to balance or not (it is MP and time is tight).

The comment was uncalled for. I would not have adjusted the score as the opps earned it and I don't see how your comment really damaged them. But I would have given your side a procedural penalty.

[McBruce]

It sounds from your comment like this was offline bridge, and the TD made the decision on the spot. In this part of the world (ACBL, British Columbia, Canada) TDs who care to attend the free seminars given by Matt Smith and other Regional Directors are advised never to make a judgment decision on the spot. You get the facts, have the players obtain a result, and tell the players you will look at it when you have enough time. If some bidding judgment is called for, this allows you time to ask a few players who have already played the hand or won't play it in the movement, to give their opinion. In this case, where the question is one of analysis, it is easier to see with the full hand that whatever South's claim was, he took an inferior line.

 

The comment I think deserves a warning, not a procedural penalty. You do have the right to think and to ask questions, and I think you have a reasonable excuse to do so on this auction. It would be quite a different question if your eventual pass did not end the auction, for now your partner faces considerable difficulties. It sounds to me like declarer was frustrated at going down one and claimed to be misled without really looking at the position. The claim after the fact that he would have led the jack from dummy instead of low to the king, which is what I assume happened, seems self-serving: it's a guess, and the fact that you thought about balancing says virtually nothing about the distribution of high-cards. 13-7 is well within the parameters.

 

And twenty minutes after the hand, a good TD would be able to explain to both pairs the decision and the reason for it. Both pairs would probably have cooled down by now somewhat and would respect the TD more for taking the time to come to a reasoned decision. That's why we shouldn't make immediate judgment calls.

[Free]

He had a 70% safety play* for 2♥ tricks when he may only need 1, and he blew it. This has nothing to do with whatever East said at the table. However, East shouldn't say anything at all.

 

I don't think an adjustment is in place, but East should learn to shut up. You might as well say "I was thinking of doubling you for penalties", and mess up the game completely. I guess a warning or procedural penalty is in play. Warning will probably have a better effect...

 

(*) Checked this with SuitPlay: running the 6 is the best line of play with this holding.

[hotShot]

MP, Both, I was sitting east holding: QJxxx QTx x QTxx

 

South, the dealer, open 1NT (15-17). North respond 2NT, alerted. Now south bid 3♦ and the bidding come back to me.

 

I asked what is 2NT and was explained that it is ♦ suit. I then asked whether it can show invitaional hand. North's answer was yes and south has to bid 3♣ to show a better opening hand then north can decide whether to go to game. So in short, what I felt at this moment was that North could have weak or at best invitational value.

 

Since we play heavy trap after strong NT. Partner can have a very good hand when passing over 1NT albeit he may take some action if he really gets one after the 3♦ bid by south.

 

I tranced for quite some time before finally passing the 3♦ bid and had said sorry to opp's that I have to take time to decide whether to balance or not (it is MP and time is tight).

At the table you should never comment your own auction. It could be taken as lead directing or giving other kinds of information to your partner. It could also be taken as intentionally misleading your opponent.

 

Bridge is a game of mind and there is nothing wrong with thinking, but it could create UI for your partner. Being the third to pass you oviously won't influence your partners bidding if you pass and if you bid something it is allowed information for him.

 

Weak hands may -of cause- ask about the bidding. But you should keep in mind, that there might be a timing issue. Asking about a bid immediately after an alert should be no problem, but detailed inquiries create to much UI, so they should not be done without a chance to make a bid. Without the intention to make a bid, you should wait until your partner made his covered lead. This way the UI won't influece the game.

 

Note that if you ask opps about their bidding, don't imply meaning.

Ask: How strong can he be? (Don't ask: Could it be invitational?)

Because what you ask about can create UI for your partner.

 

You stated that your hand might be worth a bid, since your partner could still be strong.

So without you comment, there would have been no problem at all.

[Flame]

I dont agree with the director and wouldnt change the score.

About your comment its out of place.

I understand the director, yet i believe this kind of rulling style is wrong.

[barmar]

While your comment may have been inappropriate, I don't see how it is damaging in any way. It's obvious that you were thinking about balancing, what else would you have been thinking about (what to have for dinner, maybe)?

 

I don't see how it an be construed to show extra values, as players often balance with minimum hands, expecting to find values in partner's hand. Although the fact that you eventually chose to pass might be what made him go wrong -- you might have the good hand, and have downgraded it because you're ahead of the strong bidder.

 

Anyway, the Laws say that while a player may take inferences from an opponent's extraneous actions, he does so at his own risk (Law 73D1). Your only obligations are to avoid making these actions when you could have known that they would cause an opponent to go wrong (Law 72B1) and of course not to intentionally try to mislead an opponent (73D2).

[inquiry]

You are allowed to ask questions when it is your turn to bid. In the passout seat you are allowed to think. You could be thinking, for instance, what to lead when you passed (not on this hand, of course as it will not be your lead). Your opponents can draw inferences from your "hesitations" but your partner may not.

 

The problem, as others pointed out, was your explaination. Your opponent assumed your problem must be you held a stronger hand (rather than a shapely hand). But we all know that on the auction, even without being told, your side has around 16 hcp at a minimum, and it can be quite more. So the less points you have, the more your partner will hold. So the fact you considered a shapely double, bidding as it were, your partners HCP is not that terribly unusual.

 

I certainly would not have issued a corrected score, unless you had a known recored of coffee housing, but I might have issued you a procedural penalty for your unsolicited comment, but more than likely I would have just issued a warning not to say such things in the future.

[kenrexford]

I think the forum is too hard on you.

 

The comment was a friendly comment. It converted their possible inference from a wrong inference that the tank was to consider penalty to a right inference that the tank was for balancing, helping them know that you had short diamonds.

 

Further, Aces cannot be guessed, but Queens can. Thus, with three Queens, you gave away useful information. This is not misleading, but helpful.

[inquiry]

I think the forum is too hard on you.

Well, I am not exactly sure why you say this. For the most part, the forum pointed out that the comment was wrong. And in fact, the director was well within his responsibilities to rule as he did. He has the strong backing of

 

LAW 73F2 Player Injured by Illegal Deception

 

This law states, (in blue) "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

 

In ths case, the "innocent side" was declarer, who could be seen to draw a "false inference from a remark" (in this case, "I have to take time to decide whether to balance or not". During play, perhaps, West has show up already with diamond ACE and spade ACE. Is it not unreasonable for a player of certain level of abilities to assume no one would take so long to contemplate balancing with at most three queens and maybe a jack? So the director had a lot to consider here. It matters not so much that the declarer misplayed hearts, he was lead astry perhaps by the gratitious comment.

 

The point of contention here for me, is the part of the law that states, "no demonstratable bridge reason for the action". HEre there is a bridge reason for the hestiation. One has to consider the opton of bidding on as east. So if there had been just the hesitation and declarer made the claim he did, I am certain the director would have ruled no foul. But what was the "bridge reason" for the statement about balancing. No where in the proprieties of the game does it tell you that it is approriate for you to explain why you took so long to make a bid. In the directors view, Twcho could have known that the comment "I have to take tiem to decide rather to balance or not" could work in his favor. Here I would tend to disagree, but I had I made this comment and the ruling gone against me, I would have understood.

 

I have seen people simply "sorry for the delay:, or "sorry, I zoned out for a minute". But no such comment is required. And indeed, if his partner got off to a killing lead, the could have been unpleasant accusations that different "sorry " messages for the delay convey different information.. .mabye "I had to take time" could have one meaning and "I need to consider balancing" another. Of course, that is not the case here, but if you speak such things at the table, eventually someone might accuse you of conveying additional information about your hand. Simply pass after the delay and play on is correct.

[kenrexford]

All of this makes perfectly good legal sense.

 

However, two realities seem to crop up in my mind.

 

First, the statement was not in the slightest misleading. He was in fact thinking about balancing. A statement like, "I was thinking about doubling," in contrast, would be misleading and possibly advantageous. A true statement, clarifying the real reason for the tank, cannot plausibly be deemed damaging, if the tank was legitimately for that reason. (A frivolous tank, followed by a comment, might be a problem. But, IMO, the problem would not be the comment but the frivolous tank.)

 

Second, the comments in the forum up to my comment were often that the uttering of the statement was "out of line." "Out of line" is much harsher than "disallowed" or "not a good idea" or "an impropriety." All I see was a person who, trying to be friendly and courteous, had the audacity to apologize for the delay and explain with a gratuitous benefit to the opposing side what he held, namely shortness in diamonds and insufficient values to stomach a double.

 

I can see absolutely no logical reason why anyone would conclude that the making of this comment was, or could be, calculated to mislead. I, further, find it troubling to have apologies described as "no demonstrable bridge reason."

 

I would even go so far as to suggest that this comment, to a degree, is actually a good example of using active ethics. If you tank, and if that tank might lead to one conclusion (finesse diamonds the wrong way), and explain that the lengthy tank was not based upon a deliberation over doubling, then you have done very well. NOT making this comment, in contrast, would likely have resulted in protestations if Declarer held the A-10-x in hand and K-J-x-x-x-x on dummy, and finessed wrong.

 

So, instead of "out of line," I go with "worthy of a nomination for active ethics of the day."

 

As an aside, I would have doubled in pass-out seat, at matchpoints. So, this hand is well within my parameters for a legitimate and long hesitation. If I held the heart Ace, this would be a no-brainer double. Thus, the pass ultimately suggests NOT having the heart Ace. (Strike that -- I thought it was NV versus NV.)

[hotShot]

  The comment was uncalled for.

It sounds from your comment like this was offline bridge ....

Meaning it wasn't online bridge.

The comment I think deserves a warning, not a procedural penalty.

  At the table you should never comment your own auction.

About your comment its out of place.

  While your comment may have been inappropriate, ...

 

I don't see anyone who called the comment "out of line". Maybe i'm missing something, but most posts implied that although the comment did no damage opps, it would be better not to comment your own actions, during bidding and play.

[whereagles]

This is a tough question and I think it should be taken to an Appeals Committee. In fact, I consider it a textbook example of why Appeals Committees should exist :) Both sides have a reasonable case and an experienced Committee will probably judge this better than a Director under the stress of running a large event.

 

I'm not saying the Director was right or wrong, though.

[barmar]

All I see was a person who, trying to be friendly and courteous, had the audacity to apologize for the delay and explain with a gratuitous benefit to the opposing side what he held, namely shortness in diamonds and insufficient values to stomach a double.

Did the remark even go that far? "Balance" just means doing something other than pass in the pass-out seat, it doesn't imply any particular choice of bid or the corresponding hand shape. Since he wasn't going to be the opening leader, all his comment did was confirm that he was thinking about a bridge action, he didn't zone out or not realize it was his turn to bid.

 

It's reminiscent somewhat of defenders who stop to think before playing to trick one, and announce "I'm thinking about the whole hand." This is intended to prevent declarer from misconstruing the hesitation as coffeehousing. But it's really unnecessary -- defenders are expected to need time to plan their defense when dummy comes down, so declarer should not take any special inference from a delay at that time. Meanwhile, if the player is not consistent in making that announcement, there can be concerns about what it means when he plays quickly to trick 1, or takes a while but doesn't make that gratuitous announcement.