Ruling - correct?

[Vilgan]

Still not really satisfied with how a director call/appeal in the RR final was handled, so figured I would check to see if I'm out of line to be a bit on the unhappy side.

 

The auction went:

 

1NT - p - 3NT - p(1) - p - p

 

1: A Bit of a hesitation, probably 12-14 seconds. No stop card was used by the 3 NT bidder.

 

The person on lead has the following hand:

 

Txx K9 Kxx Q9xxx

 

At matchpoints, given the auction, the 10 of spades was led. My partners reasoning was that it called for a major suit lead, and he also didn't want to give away a free finesse in a suit the declaring side was bound to have some length in by leading a club.

 

As it turns out, a spade is the only lead that sets the contract by 2. The director was called, informed of the hesitation, etc. The director ruled that despite the auction and the fact it was a MP event, the 4th best club was a logical alternative and enforced a club lead.

 

It was appealed, and the appeals committee also took the stance that the club was an equally logical alternative.

 

I dunno, maybe we are out of line by being annoyed with this. But it seems to me, that with no hesitation the logical lead with that hand and that auction is a spade. period. If it was an IMP event, then there might be more of a case for a club lead with the side entries. However, in MP it doesn't seem that blindly just leading a 4th best club is the correct lead or logically equal to a spade.

 

Are we that crazy for being unhappy with this ruling? I've had no problem with rulings being made not in our favor before if it made sense (different partner had a tendency to think w/o a need for it (unintentional coffeehouse) sometimes, which costs), but even a week after the fact this still grates at me a bit.

 

The hand is board 7 at http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...is/IMPRWF1m.pdf

 

Eric

[hotShot]

I think the argument is missing the case here. Even if opponent did not use the stop card, you should wait the usual time (10 sec.) before you bid on.

So I would argue that there was no hesitation just active ethical behavior.

 

I wonder what the ACBL suggests as correct behavior after opps missing stop card.

[inquiry]

Others will disagree with me, but if the details are as given, you were given a bad ruling imo. The rules require the use of a stop card when skipping level of biddings. Players expected to maintain proper tempo (pausing ~10 seconds) if a stop card (or skip bid) is shown or not, and you would have been potentially at risk if your partner had passed quickly (although in this case, I have never seen a complaint for a quick pass). The laws have language that there is potential procedural penalties for failure to use a stop card (skip bid warning).

 

Given the requirement to use the stop card, the requirement that you honor the spirit of the stop card warning EVEN IF IT IS NOT USED, I can not imagine such a ruling going against you unless your parnter took considerably longer than 10 seconds or made an agonizing commotion over his long pass.

[Finch]

This is actually a very difficult ruling.

To answer your immediate question: I also think a club lead is a logical alternative. But there's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not totally familiar with the ACBL rules, but in England if you bid 3NT without using the stop card, and the next hand waits for 10 seconds before passing then (unless they have a history of not waiting out the stop warning) there would be a ruling of no UI, and NS would be told to use the stop card properly.

 

(I always wait 10 seconds after a jump bid. Always. Anyone who then tries to claim I've passed UI will get very short shrift. If your partnership did the same I guess you would also be OK, but as I said I don't play in the ACBL.)

 

However, that being said, let's assume the ACBL rules are such that it is fair to rule that there has been a break in tempo, and that partner has given you UI.

 

What does the UI suggest?

 

It suggests that partner was thinking of bidding or doubling, and that he has a long suit somewhere. You know from your hand he is likely to have a few high cards, but not that he is shapely. So the UI suggests making a short suit lead. It really suggests anything except a club lead.

 

If you lead the HK and it was right I would definitely, definitely, definitely rule against you. That would seem to be blatantly taking advantage of the UI.

 

As it is, the choice of a spade it tougher. I would probably rule against you anyway. I don't think this is 100% clear cut, but I wouldn't get too upset about it.

 

Look at it from the opponents point of view: RHO thought for ages over 3NT, clearly wanted to do something, couldn't decide what, must have a long suit. LHO then picked out a short suit lead which was the only way to beat the contract. Doesn't that smell slightly?

[Guest Jlall]

Ben, can you please cite where anything says you must use the stop card? It is my understanding that you can use the stop card if you like, or you can choose not to, as long as you are uniform about it. The stop card has no relevance on protecting you and the opps are supposed to wait 10 seconds regardless of whether you use it or not.

 

That being said, 12-14 seconds after 1N p 3N is a break in tempo. All auctions are not created equal and I know very few people who actually do wait the full 10 seconds on that auction (even though I agree technically they should). If they do that and take more time after that they have simply broken tempo.

 

Does the UI demonstrably suggest a spade lead? Well, it suggests a major lead, but certainly had partner doubled you would have led a spade so I think a spade lead is much more likely to be right after the break in tempo.

 

Is a club lead a logical alternative? This is the easiest question, yes. Your longest and strongest suit when it is unbid must always be an LA.

 

I would rule against you as well.

[david_c]

If you said "this was a bad ruling because my partner is supposed to pause for 10 seconds" then I would have a lot of sympathy. Of course, for this to be a valid defence it would have to be true that your partner always paused for 10 seconds on this auction. I don't know many people who do that. Heck, I admit, I don't do that (unless RHO leaves the stop card out, as they are supposed to do here in England but hardly ever happens), and I would expect to be ruled against if I was in this situation.

 

But when you say (to paraphrase) "this was a bad ruling because a spade is clear" I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Many people would lead a club. It doesn't make any difference if you are convinced a spade is right, the TD will judge it on whether a club lead is a reasonable alternative, and it is.

[cherdano]

Of course a club is a logical alternative. Just post it as a lead poll on, say, RGB, I promise it won't be an unanimous spade vote. If that had been the only questionable matter in the appeal, then you should have had your deposit forfeited/given an AWM/whatever-your-sponsoring-organizations-mandates-for-frivolous-appeals.

 

Of course, whether there was UI is a more doubtful question.

[bid_em_up]

On a good day, a spade lead works. On a bad day, the club lead would have worked. Flip a coin.

 

The lack of Stayman by LHO tends to indicate that he does not have a major and that leading a major is probably correct. Unfortunately, for you, a club is a logical alternative as well and partners hesitation almost bars any lead considered as non-normal.

 

Tell partner that if he cannot pass smoothly on this holding that he must either 1) double 3N (tends to ask for spade lead in this sequence) or 2) bid 4S. He cannot hesitate and then pass, as you will be unable to win the post-mortem or the appeal, even when you do find the winning opening lead.

[paulg]

ACBL Bidding Box Regulations

 

...

 

THE STOP CARD

 

Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding.

 

Place the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box.

 

NOTE: If a player forgets to replace the stop card there is no penalty. It is each player's responsibility to maintain appropriate tempo including after a skip bid.

To me the phrasing ("Place ...") implies an order and that the stop card must be used. Of course, if there is no penalty for not using it then it will be difficult to enforce this regulation.

 

Appendix G of the ACBL Conditions of Contest has similar wording.

[Vilgan]

Thanks for the honest replies :( It makes me feel better.. the fact that various friends have been saying "you got screwed" for the past week made it harder to just file away.

 

I guess the main thinking for me was:

 

1) if the pause suggests any suit, its a heart. If the person who hesitated had a good spade suit they could have doubled

 

2) At MP the club seems like a possible but unequal alternative

 

3) 12ish seconds didn't seem that excessive, that it screamed for an unusual lead

 

I guess the main thing is.. it is a logical alternative, and whether it is equal or not (debatable) is irrelevant as far as how the process works. Was my first time I ever appealed something, so wasn't real familiar with what a decision is based on.

 

Eric

[bid_em_up]

3) 12ish seconds didn't seem that excessive, that it screamed for an unusual lead

I guess the problem is, normally after 1N-3N, pass is relatively instantaneous in most cases. Even though, technically it is a "skip bid", it is not a bid that is unexpected in nature. The original intent of the skip bid warning was to both warn the opponents that an unexpected bid was about to take place, and to help prevent inferences from such auctions as 2H (immediate pass, nothing to think about) or 2H (15 second pause, pass....values but no good bid).

 

If the opponents had stated "skip bid, please wait" prior to bidding 3N, and if, the pause was no more than about 12-15 seconds, I dont think the committee could really rule against you as the break in tempo wouldn't be much longer than what was required by the skip bid warning.

 

Unforfunately, there is no penalty for failure to use the stop card, nor is there a requirement that it must be used. This is it's main fallacy.

 

Just because the card is in the box, doesn't mean you actually have to use it. However, you are supposed to either always use it, or always not use it. If you could show that in fact the opponents use the stop card in other auctions, I might be more inclined to rule in your favor or at least assign them with a procedural penalty/warning as well.

[Elianna]

I think that the operative phrase is in the first paragraph:

Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding.

 

To me, "should" is the operative word. The rest of the quote just tells one how to use it.

 

Even the note says that it's the responsibility of the bidder after the skip bid to maintain an even tempo.

[blackshoe]

The regulation requires a player to pause after a skip, whether or not the warning was given. Therefore, I agree with Ben that a 12 second or so pause after a skip bid is "in tempo" regardless whether the warning was given. No break in tempo means that any question of "logical alternatives" is moot.

 

The problem here, it seems to me, is that both the TD and the AC leapt from "Director!" to "is there a logical alternative?" without really considering whether there was or was not a BIT. Unfortunately, that's typical. :(

[inquiry]

Ben, can you please cite where anything says you must use the stop card? It is my understanding that you can use the stop card if you like, or you can choose not to, as long as you are uniform about it. The stop card has no relevance on protecting you and the opps are supposed to wait 10 seconds regardless of whether you use it or not.

Justin, the best spot is probably in the ACBL "codification." See chapter 12, section A. Which includes the following text.

 

Skip Bid Warning (953-102)

Previous regulations requiring a mandatory pause are rescinded and replaced with the following:

1. How and When Made
   Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making an opening bid on the two level or higher, or prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding:
   1. 
      
   2. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please Wait!"
      
   3. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so the LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box.
      

There was more, including the section quoted by cardsharp, and a discussion that even without the skip bid warning, you are expected to pause for roughly 10 seconds and that experienced players are expected to do so. But pay close attention to the wording ... "Players should protect their rights ...by announcing... prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding."

 

In my opinion, the next hand has a legal responsibility to pause for about 10 seconds before bidding. If a fast pass, would you rule AGAINST a club lead, as the fast past suggested no thought needed, so the "natural club" was more attractive, and rule that a spade must be lead? To protect the 3NT sides rights, and to protect the other sides rights, it is correct to issue the warning. Most don't do it, fine, but the standard and required pause can not lead to an UI ruling imho. The director and committee got this one wrong... so say the ACBL own rules. QED

[Guest Jlall]

I do not interpret "should protect their rights by..." as mandating a stop card be used. Some of the quoted passages here even showed that there is no penalty for not doing so. Some directors have also told me that it is not required but is encouraged to use the stop card (of course directors have been wrong before). Can anyone get a definitive answer to this from some authority?

 

Anyways, the stop card is not really an issue here, we all agree that the next hand should take 10 seconds. It seems to me like, in practice, 12-14 seconds was a break in tempo though. Perhaps you can argue that they were inaccurate at counting to 10 seconds and didn't break tempo, but come on in practice we all know when someone is thinking 99 % of the time and also that people always take less than ten seconds on this auction and not more. This is enough for me to think that a BIT is established and there was UI.

[inquiry]

I do not interpret "should protect their rights by..." as mandating a stop card be used. Some of the quoted passages here even showed that there is no penalty for not doing so. Some directors have also told me that it is not required but is encouraged to use the stop card (of course directors have been wrong before). Can anyone get a definitive answer to this from some authority?

 

Anyways, the stop card is not really an issue here, we all agree that the next hand should take 10 seconds. It seems to me like, in practice, 12-14 seconds was a break in tempo though. Perhaps you can argue that they were inaccurate at counting to 10 seconds and didn't break tempo, but come on in practice we all know when someone is thinking 99 % of the time and also that people always take less than ten seconds on this auction and not more. This is enough for me to think that a BIT is established and there was UI.

I read "should protect your rights" as if you want to protected from UI from a quick pass, you should alert. Since everyone is suppose to take 10 seconds (more or less) with or without the warning, there is no need to protect yourself or your opponents from their MANDATORY hesitation. But here is the rub. The logic here is the person paused to think, and therefore there was BIT and UI. I say BS. While it is true most people pass after 1N-3N without much apparent thought, and perhaps this same person ALWAYS does too, except for this time, where he presumably had a problem. But the implication of his thought here (12 to 13 seconds) as opposed to the "normal" fast pass is a direct result of the lack of the SKIP BID warning. So I would rule that the pause was required, and no BIT. I can't really imagine are we going to get down to 7-8 seconds is a quick pass and 12-14 seconds is a slow pass. Have we just moved the bar from 1 second to 8 second pass to this? I have no idea how to tell if someone took 14 seconds to 10 seconds to bid. Maybe others are doing 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000 in their head, not me.

[dogsbreath]

hi

 

I strongly disagree that a club is a 'logical alternate' ,, this is NOT the same as a (possible) tempo break followed by subsequent bids.

 

A club (or any other lead) is only a logical alternate if you shuffle your hand and pick a lead card at random.

 

I wouldnt lead a club on that auction unless you removed the other 8 cards from my hand

 

Rgds Dog

[jdonn]

hi

 

I strongly disagree that a club is a 'logical alternate'  ,, this is NOT the same as a (possible) tempo break followed by subsequent bids.

 

A club (or any other lead) is only a logical alternate if you shuffle your hand and pick a lead card at random.

 

I wouldnt lead a club on that auction unless you removed the other 8 cards from my hand

 

Rgds Dog

A club is NOT a logical alternative?? You need to brush up on the definition. It would probably be a majority choice, and even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter since it would certainly be a lot of players' choice. What you may think of a club lead doesn't matter.

 

The appeals committee in this case ruled correctly. They are allowed to use bridge logic as a guide. In other words, looking at east's hand she obviously WAS thinking, which when considered in conjunction with the fact that east did exceed the time limit (even if just for a little, which I sort of doubt) creates a very compelling case there was a noticeable break in tempo. This obviously creates UI that partner has a suit I should try to find, so I would disallow any lead but a club. Lack of use of the stop card has absolutely no bearing since EW have the same obligations.

 

The only real argument I think EW have is that a spade should be allowed since it wasn't the shortest suit. That doesn't really convince me, but it seems like their best chance. If they didn't make that argument, and didn't argue that there was no break in tempo, then the appeal is meritless.

[Vilgan]

The only real argument I think EW have is that a spade should be allowed since it wasn't the shortest suit. That doesn't really convince me, but it seems like their best chance. If they didn't make that argument, and didn't argue that there was no break in tempo, then the appeal is meritless.

Hrmm... as a sidenote we were not allowed to make any argument. What happened was:

 

director made a ruling, informed us that we may appeal if we wish.

 

We indicated a desire to appeal.

 

The director filled out our names on a form, and asked the person who lead the spade to sign his name in a certain spot showing his desire to appeal the ruling.

 

The form was taken away.

 

Later that evening we were informed of the committee's decision.

 

We did not see the committee, were not offered a chance to meet with the committee, and were not (as far as I can tell) offered a chance to make any case whatsoever. If there was a time when we were supposed to fill out our exact disagreement with the ruling, it was explained or offered to us. The decision was based completely on the spade lead and apparently the opponents written description what happened.

 

Not trying to say "omg, our appeal should have been granted", since I misunderstood the difference between logical alternative and logically equal. However, this time when we were supposed to "make that argument" did not exist.

[jdonn]

The only real argument I think EW have is that a spade should be allowed since it wasn't the shortest suit. That doesn't really convince me, but it seems like their best chance. If they didn't make that argument, and didn't argue that there was no break in tempo, then the appeal is meritless.

Hrmm... as a sidenote we were not allowed to make any argument. What happened was:

 

director made a ruling, informed us that we may appeal if we wish.

 

We indicated a desire to appeal.

 

The director filled out our names on a form, and asked the person who lead the spade to sign his name in a certain spot showing his desire to appeal the ruling.

 

The form was taken away.

 

Later that evening we were informed of the committee's decision.

 

We did not see the committee, were not offered a chance to meet with the committee, and were not (as far as I can tell) offered a chance to make any case whatsoever. If there was a time when we were supposed to fill out our exact disagreement with the ruling, it was explained or offered to us. The decision was based completely on the spade lead and apparently the opponents written description what happened.

 

Not trying to say "omg, our appeal should have been granted", since I misunderstood the difference between logical alternative and logically equal. However, this time when we were supposed to "make that argument" did not exist.

If that's how it happened you were robbed, you should at least get to make your case before the committee. In this case you wouldn't have won but you are entitled your day in court so this was very unjust for you.

[Joe de Balliol]

Reluctantly, I'd rule that a club lead is an LA and a spade is suggested by the hesitation, so I'll go along with the director's ruling. But my heart says "sod the law - spade lead looks fine".

 

J

[jikl]

This sounds like a good system :)

 

You appeal, the opponents who want the appeal to fail give written evidence obviously favouring them. The only other person giving evidence is the director with whom you disagree... Hrm, I am surprised they didn't keep your money and take it to the bar on that system.

 

Sean

[helene_t]

1) if the pause suggests any suit, its a heart. If the person who hesitated had a good spade suit they could have doubled

If this was your reasoning, I can understand that you're frustrated by the ruling. But the AC appearantly thought (and I would agree) that the hesitation suggests a spade lead, because partner might have been considering a double.

[mink]

I doubt that anybody can think about a bridge decision and measure 10 seconds simultaneously. This is why the stop card should lie there for 10 seconds, and the skip bidder takes care that is remains there for this period of time. Opp is alerted that the 10 seconds are over when the stop card is removed.

 

But if the 3nt bidder choses not to use the stop card, he fails to protect his rights, and I would allow opp to pause for anything between 3 and 20 seconds. The argument is, if he really manages to wait for exactly 10 seconds, his partner has the UI that he had nothing to think about, because if he was thinking he would not have been able to measure the time.

 

If really, like Justin suggests, the difference between 10 seconds and 12-14 seconds already creates an UI, then not using the stop card would be a smart way to prevent opps from finding the right lead: Just call the director later and state that time opp waited was too long or too short, depending on which other lead needs to be promoted to a LA. Nobody can prove you lied, because there was nobody present with a stop watch.

 

The way the committee handled the case sounds like they had learned their job with Kafka's tutorial "Der Prozeß".

 

The rest of my reasoning is hypothetical. Suppose there was really an UI, was it demonstrably suggesting the spade lead? If we assume that opps have at least 25 HCP, there are only 7 HCP left for partner (at most). It is hard to believe that with such a weak hand he could have possibly thought about a lead directing double, because even with AKT9876 in the suit that was agreed to be shown by the lead directing double it is far from clear that opps will be down if this suit is led. Having such a suit I rather would think about bidding it, but in this case it could be any suit, and therefore nothing is suggested.

 

Karl

[Sancho]

Having such a suit I rather would think about bidding it, but in this case it could be any suit, and therefore nothing is suggested.

This is not true.

 

Suppose you hold ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣KQJT. The opponents bid 1N-3N. Before you lead, partner shouts "Man, I have an AKQJT, so we'll beat this if you lead a ...", at which point he is friendly, but firmly silenced by the director.

 

Now you put your clubs face down on the table, draw one of the other cards randomly and lead it. Of course, the UI did not explicitly suggest leading that specific suit. But we must obviously adjust the score if you happen to hit partners suit.

 

The situation would be different if the hand in question was ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣5432 because now the UI does not really suggest any suit over any other (I know that technically it still does because partner is still slightly less likely to hold ♣AKQJT, but I can't come up with a better example). But the original case we are discussing is much closer to my first example because even if you argue that partner won't have thought about a lead-directing double (which I do not agree with either btw), it is highly unlikely that (one of) his suit(s) is clubs. Thus, everything else is suggested, and if the player hits a succesful non-♣ lead, we must adjust although he still had guesswork to do.

 

(Of course, we adjust only if a relevant BIT has occured. As I do not really understand the ACBL regulations on the use and non-use of the stop card, I can't comment on that. My point is solely about what is demonstrably suggested.)

Edited March 27, 2007 by Sancho