Do You Beye This?

[jonottawa]

I'll start by saying that I've been an ACBL member for almost 20 years (over half my life) and on the whole I'm quite happy with the organization. I've had to call on the highest levels of the organization a couple of times and they've always come through. But this letter to the editor and response REALLY ticked me off.

 

"To the Editor:

I am an intermediate player working to become a Life Master. To get my gold and silver points, I have to play in tournaments and sometimes against top-flight players. Some of these "A" players bid and play at a pace much faster than I am used to. On one occasion, I opened 1♣, my left-hand opponent overcalled 1♦, my partner bid 2♣ and RHO bid 2♦. I had a good hand, but with only three clubs, so I re-evaluated my hand for about six to eight seconds and decided to pass. Immediately my LHO called the director for "protection" because there was a break in tempo. I was taught to re-evaluate my hand after every bid, and I thought I was playing at normal speed.

 

How long is a player allowed to think before making a move, whether to bid or to pass? If the opponents are bidding and playing too fast, do I have to rush and follow their tempo (which often ends up in a disaster for me) or should they slow down a bit in order to maintain an even tempo? It is not very pleasant when your opponents call the director on you. It just takes the joy out of playing bridge!"

 

"Chief Tournament Director Rick Beye comments: "As you point out, less-experienced players often require more time to digest information, especially in competitive situations. Truly experienced players understand this, as do veteran tournament directors.

 

"Law 73D points out that it is 'desirable, though not always required' for players to maintain steady tempo. A variation in and of itself is not an infraction. The exact time frame for a steady tempo is not defined by Law or regulation.

 

"As an aside, Law 90A empowers the director to penalize players who unduly delay or obstruct the game -- as through needless director calls. I would hope that your club director takes the time to slow down your high-speed opponent."

 

Now, of course, what Rick should have told this guy is that no, you don't have to bid and play lightning fast just because your opponents do. As long as you maintain YOUR tempo (taking 6-8 seconds at EVERY call, for instance,) you're just fine. Then he should have said something about directors being there to make the game more enjoyable and fair for everyone, not to act as the 'police', so one shouldn't harbor any negative feelings whatsoever about a director call. He might have added that it's often a good idea to plan your follow up bids early in the auction so that you're able to bid in tempo later. Especially when you have a straightforward 4-3-3-3 hand like this guy apparently had, what's the problem?

 

But what DID Rick tell this aspiring life master-to-be?

 

In his first paragraph he leads this guy to believe that less-experienced players can take as long as they want to digest information and that 'truly experienced' (as opposed to what, people who've played for 20 years but aren't as 'truly experienced' as Rick?) players should ignore breaks in tempo by less-experienced players. Apparently 'veteran tournament directors' should as well.

 

In his second paragraph, he reinforces the perception of 'anything goes' by giving the impression that 'Yeah, yeah, it's desirable, but not required' to bid in tempo. The real reason it's 'not always required' is that, for instance, in an auction like 1N P 3N, the opening bidder can pass as fast as he wants because the partnership has arrived and there isn't a hand that the 1N bidder could have anything more to think about. Not in a competitive auction, though, and not because one of the players is more or less experienced. If someone breaks tempo edit: and passes in a competitive auction, the existence of a break-in-tempo should be immediately agreed to, usually by way of a director call. That protects the rights of BOTH partnerships. Rick should know that.

 

The third paragraph was the last straw for me. Rick implies that if I call the director (as I damn well should) if a less-experienced (or more experienced, or equally experienced) player breaks tempo edit: and passes in a competitive auction, the director should give me a procedural penalty! The guy who called the director did exactly the right thing. Yes, from time to time, most players at a club game are going to cut beginners a little slack. But it's not up to the director to do so. He's got to enforce the rules fairly and objectively.

 

It seems to me that the ACBL has a choice: Educate new players about their ethical obligations in a serious way or tell them that the rules don't apply to them because they're less experienced.

 

If Rick Beye's response is any indication, they've chosen unwisely.

[uday]

I believe you are misinterpreting the response from the ACBL

[helene_t]

I agree that the response was very poor. I agree with most of your assessment.

 

He should have made clear that the problem is that the BIT caused UI, not that it's an infraction in itself. And that the director should slow down the opponents is not a good response. It could be that they maintain a very high baseline tempo so that any 5-sec tanking will cause UI, but his response sounds as if stronger opps should adjust to the weaker players' 7-second baseline tempo, and that is not correct, I think.

[skjaeran]

Why on earth would LHO call TD directly after the slow pass???

You call TD after an infraction or supposed infraction. Here nothing at all looking like an infraction occured. I could understand calling the TD directly after the slow passers PARTNER took some action, though that's not standard procedure where I play - I believe it is in the ACBL. Normally I'd ask opps (after action by slow passers partner) if they agreed to the out of tempo pass. If they agree on this I call TD after the hand IF I think this action could be constrained by UI. If they don't agree to the BIT I'd call TD right away.

 

As a TD being called in such a way as suggested in the letter I might come down on the caller. I might only instruct him to call me at the proper time, and explaining when that time is. But, depending on how I interpret the circumstances at the table, he could receive a warning.

[pclayton]

I think Beye was trying to pacify a new player that was rattled after a director call.

 

I agree that he should have been more direct that a player should be mindful about his tempo and be aware that it can create a problem for his partner.

 

This player wasn't playing in the I/N section - he was playing in a tournament where he needed golds.

 

The ACBL needs to do a better job educating players that a director call isn't an attack on someone's character. Its simply the enforcement of rules.

[jtfanclub]

I agree with Rick.

 

Considerable leeway should be given to players not used to tournaments unless they're obviously coffeehousing. Calling the director for a hesitation that does not obviously imply a direction for his partner to take is usually fruitless anyways, and doing so to a beginning player (regardless of age or length of membership) in my humble opinion is browbeating.

 

This "protecting yourself" stuff is getting out of hand. Sure, the director is only being fair and equitible etc. etc. And those 120 people who have stopped what they're doing to stare at you getting a lecture just have your best interests at heart, or something.

 

I'm not saying the opponents did anything wrong, because hey, I don't know that they knew their opponents were beginners, and I haven't heard their side of the story yet. But if they called the director for any reason other than to restore equity, the director isn't going to be real happy with it.

 

It seems to me that the ACBL has a choice:  Educate new players about their ethical obligations in a serious way or tell them that the rules don't apply to them because they're less experienced.

 

They don't. Experienced players are supposed to protect themselves from less experienced players who fail to alert something popular (for example, Bergen Raises, transfers, or Jacoby 2NT). I would not penalize a beginner for asking about a bid out of turn. I also would not penalize a beginning player for messing with his bids before selecting a pass or double, as long as it wasn't obvious which one he was picking. In all cases, I would talk to the player later, when we didn't have 240 eyes staring at us, so that the problem didn't repeat itself.

 

We don't require that people take a course in duplicate bridge prior to playing in an ACBL tournament. Until we do, we should accept and give some slack to people who follow rubber bridge rules.

[luke warm]

how does LHO know dealer broke tempo? iow, how does he know dealer wasn't bidding at tempo?

[Trumpace]

I don't buy this. Move this thread to General Bridge Discussion! It is out of place in the Water Cooler! :unsure:

[jonottawa]

I don't buy this. Move this thread to General Bridge Discussion! It is out of place in the Water Cooler! :unsure:

I put it here because I thought more controversial topics (like the Venice cup threads) went here because the 'rules' are slightly more relaxed. I have no problem if somebody wants to move it.

[jonottawa]

I fired this off just now:

 

To the Editor:

 

I think Rick Beye's response to B.D. Lim's letter in the November Bulletin was way off the mark. Mr. Beye should have conveyed to Mr. Lim that a) it's important to bid in tempo in competitive auctions, often by planning ahead (why was Mr. Lim's 4-3-3-3 hand a problem?) b ) directors are there to make sure that the game is fun and fair for everyone and c) it's standard practice to get agreement (often with the aid of a director) that there was a break in tempo in a competitive auction when somebody breaks tempo and passes.

 

Instead Mr. Beye chose to convey to Mr. Lim that a) inexperienced players should be allowed to break tempo with impunity b ) maintaining steady tempo is desirable, though not always required and c) directors should assign procedural penalties to players who call them to establish that a BIT resulting in UI has occurred.

 

I hope Mr. Beye clarifies his comments in the December Bulletin. Otherwise, people will be left with the impression that the laws only apply to experienced players and that experienced players can expect to receive procedural penalties if they try to protect everyone at the table by calling the director when a BIT-pass occurs in a competitive auction.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan Ferguson

[ulven]

So, your view is that whenever someone breaks the tempo in the auction, i.e. thinks, the director should be called?

 

Your letter comes across as if thinking isn't really allowed. Like you should have made up your mind already when opening what to do through the auction.

 

Your view of "fun and fair for everyone" and standard practise differs a lot from my view it seems.

[jonottawa]

So, your view is that whenever someone breaks the tempo in the auction, i.e. thinks, the director should be called?

 

Your letter comes across as if thinking isn't really allowed. Like you should have made up your mind already when opening what to do through the auction.

 

Your view of "fun and fair for everyone" and standard practise differs a lot from my view it seems.

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI.

 

I might call the director in such an instance once every 10 sessions or so. The director comes, gets the opps to acknowledge the BIT, tells the partner of the tempo-breaker not to take any inference, and says 'call me back if there's a problem.'

 

If you think it's a good idea to let people draw inferences from breaks in tempo or to wait until after the damage is done to try to get the opponents to acknowledge there was a break in tempo, then yes, your view is substantially different from mine.

 

If you think a director call per table every 10 sessions is too onerous a burden to suffer in order to make sure the game is fair, then yes, we differ on what constitutes "fun and fair for everyone" as well.

[jonottawa]

Here's an example of opps taking advantage of UI from a BIT during an ACBL tournament on BBO that I objected to:

 

http://jonathanferguson.com/2007/09/16/director.aspx

[mike777]

As I mentioned before in my other post, I just played my first f2f bridge in years..many years.

 

 

Every single hand was full of long breaks in tempo, gestures and comments such as "I am confused" in the middle of the bidding. I did not call director on any of these. I repeat I saw this in Bracket #3....Bracket one and under 2000 swiss.....

 

I called director on one call in 3 events and I still think the ruling was very wrong despite discussing it with 5 other directors at that event who all agreed with the ruling.

 

If I ignore...all the gestures, comments, long waits and yet still feel the directors when I call them get it wrong..this is not good for bridge.

[ulven]

So, your view is that whenever someone breaks the tempo in the auction, i.e. thinks, the director should be called?

 

Your letter comes across as if thinking isn't really allowed. Like you should have made up your mind already when opening what to do through the auction.

 

Your view of "fun and fair for everyone" and standard practise differs a lot from my view it seems.

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI.

Of course it's ok to call the director when there's been a break in tempo AND the player passed AND the partner bid something. But then I would ususally just establish an agreement that there had been a BIT (only calling the police if we're not in agreement) and 'check-the-evidence' to decide if an infraction did occur or not.

 

Last time I called the director on a BIT-auction was 15 months ago and it was after dummy hit (declarer broke tempo in the auction).

 

My point was that your letter should at least have clarified that you meant pass and bid auctions. I think the wording was unfortunate and that we still differ on our view of the matter.

[jonottawa]

So, your view is that whenever someone breaks the tempo in the auction, i.e. thinks, the director should be called?

 

Your letter comes across as if thinking isn't really allowed. Like you should have made up your mind already when opening what to do through the auction.

 

Your view of "fun and fair for everyone" and standard practise differs a lot from my view it seems.

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI.

Of course it's ok to call the director when there's been a break in tempo AND the player passed AND the partner bid something. But then I would ususally just establish an agreement that there had been a BIT (only calling the police if we're not in agreement) and 'check-the-evidence' to decide if an infraction did occur or not.

 

Last time I called the director on a BIT-auction was 15 months ago and it was after dummy hit (declarer broke tempo in the auction).

 

My point was that your letter should at least have clarified that you meant pass and bid auctions. I think the wording was unfortunate and that we still differ on our view of the matter.

Your point seems to keep changing. I think my letter's pretty clear:

 

"it's standard practice to get agreement (often with the aid of a director) that there was a break in tempo in a competitive auction when somebody breaks tempo and passes."

 

You disagree with this and think it's appropriate to wait and see.

 

I think it protects both partnerships to establish that there was a break in tempo IMMEDIATELY. You don't have 'faulty memories' cropping up and if a player was tempted to take an inappropriate view, he would certainly now think twice.

 

If you say 'Just say to your novice opponent 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?'' you're arguably going to rattle a novice worse than if you had called the director. Presumably you're a stranger and your behavior could be interpreted as bullying. The novice might think that the break in tempo itself was an infraction and get emotional. Presumably the novice knows the director and the director will gently explain the situation to the novice.

[jillybean]

Every single hand was full of long breaks in tempo, gestures and comments such as "I am confused" in the middle of the bidding. I did not call director on any of these. I repeat I saw this in Bracket #3....Bracket one and under 2000 swiss.....

You've got to call the director on these!

[jkljkl]

Hello,

 

I think that the answer was simply poorly chosen. But I can also see that it is difficult to give a perfect answer due of the fictional assumption that we just play one game called bridge while we don't. So explaining something about the rules you have often to put several different things under one hat.

 

A nice example is the mentioned answer fo Mr. Beye. A player asks about a certain behaviour at higher tourneys. Now Mr. Beye could give a straight answer, but no, he has to think about the different games called bridge out there and so he feels compelled to add something about - your *club* director - just to prevent anti-social behaviour at the club.

 

I agree that it had been better to explain plainly what the rules demand and then add that at the club level sometimes a watering down is needed.

 

BTW. Larry Cohen gives out a monthly newsletter. One of the topics this months was about what you should do if partner breakes tempo.

 

http://www.larryco.com/BG%20articles/A48--Ethics.htm

 

ciao stefan

[helene_t]

Dunno about ACBL rules but calling the TD just because of a BIT seems absurd to me.

 

"Truly experienced players understand this" was probably meant as that inexperienced players often have to think about things that are automatic for more experienced players. One consequence of this is that 7 secs may not be a BIT at all, and even if it is a BIT it is less suggestive than a BIT by an expert. He wasn't saying that the rules don't apply to inexperienced players.

 

What I have an issue with is this "slow down your lightening-speed opponents".

[luke warm]

~~ One consequence of this is that 7 secs may not be a BIT at all, and even if it is a BIT it is less suggestive than a BIT by an expert. ~~

this was my point, too

[blackshoe]

Dunno about ACBL rules but calling the TD just because of a BIT seems absurd to me.

 

[snip]

 

What I have an issue with is this "slow down your lightening-speed opponents".

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

This is the basic law (the emphasis is mine). I believe most jurisdictions let it stand as is, but...

 

At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side.

 

This is how the ACBL has elected to implement the highlighted clause in the law. In practice, players and some directors seem to put a period after "immediately", so they call the TD when a BIT occurs.

 

You don't need to reserve your rights, anyway. You call the TD when Law 16A2 comes into play:

 

When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage.

 

*When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed.

 

It may, however, be difficult for the TD to establish that a BIT in fact occurred if you don't call at the time. So pragmatically, you get agreement there was a BIT, or you call the TD. 16A1 might have been better worded as

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he should obtain agreement from the opponents as to the facts, summoning the Director immediately if the opponents dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

 

Some months ago, at a club game, one of the better (and sometimes a bit flamboyant) local players was playing a hand rather more rapidly than usual. So fast, in fact, that I literally could not keep up. So I asked him to slow down. He did. Had he not, I would have called the director - and he knows me, so he knew that. B) If nothing else, Law 74A2 would apply here.

 

That said, I don't think Rick was telling his readers that the TD should tell a player or pair to slow down just because their opponents are slower than they are. What he's saying is that they should understand that the fact the pair is slower (or faster, for that matter) than than they are does not mean that every call or play they make comes with an automatic break in tempo.

[Winstonm]

I don't think there is as much issue here as is being made. As Beyes correctly points out, it is best to bid and play in tempo, but it is a practical impossibility.

 

The other point is the statement "he called the director on me." This misunderstanding often makes a player feel as though he were being singled out, but that is not the case. The director was not called "on you". The director was summoned to protect everyone's rights. A director's call is NOT an accusation. All a director's call means is the player who called believes an irregularity has occured.

 

You simply should not react emotionally to a director's call to the table. To paraphrase "The Godfather": "It's not personal. It's only business."

 

It is not the break in tempo that is the problem but what occurs a-f-t-e-r the break in tempo - and that is the reason the director is summoned.

[Elianna]

If you say 'Just say to your novice opponent 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?'' you're arguably going to rattle a novice worse than if you had called the director. Presumably you're a stranger and your behavior could be interpreted as bullying. The novice might think that the break in tempo itself was an infraction and get emotional. Presumably the novice knows the director and the director will gently explain the situation to the novice.

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay.

[skjaeran]

It is not the break in tempo that is the problem but what occurs a-f-t-e-r the break in tempo - and that is the reason the director is summoned.

I strongly agree with this.

However, in the letter to Beye LHO called for the TD directly after the slow pass. That's ridiculous IMO.

[matmat]

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay.

this is a fantastic way to encourage people to flock to the game and stay for a lifetime.