Lots of TD calls in SF

[kenrexford]

I just noted one TD call and appeal. I was surprised byt he number of TD calls I had to make in SF.

 

In one round, the appeal situation occurred. Two others also.

 

On one, a different LHO opened one of a suit, heard a one-level response form his partner, and then heard me jump overcall 3♣. He grabbed the pass card and held it in his hand for about 20 seconds (after initially waiting the standard 10), obviously debating the matter greatly. I called, and the TD seemed annoyed with me for calling. I suggested that the hesitation, card in hand, might suggest action. The TD noted with a short voice, directed at me, that of course he cannot take inference. The TD walked away and told me to call if there was a problem. The humor was that RHO did take massive inference and bid 3NT. LHO's extra's were in the form of a stiff club. My jump overcall was based on KJ10xxx with two side Aces, and I caught p[artner with Qxx support. Just desserts.

 

A few rounds later. P-P-to me. I opened 1♣, alerted as "unbalanced with 4+ clubs or balanced, 11-14 or 18-19. If balanced, the minor shap is completely unknown. For instance, with six diamonds and two clubs, partner could open 1♣ if he considers his hand ba;anced."

 

Fourth seat doubled. This was alerted and explained as "I'm not sure, because this is undiscussed, but I'm going to assume that we are playing over this 1♣ the way we would over some other 1♣ bid." RHO then, after my pard passed, bid 1♠. I passed, LHO bid 2NT. RHO bid 3♣, alerted. LHO bid 3♠, alerted. RHO bid 3NT. After partner's face-down lead, I asked. LHO said that he assumed that 3♣, a cuebid mind you, was asking for three-card spades, but that there was no agreement here. LHO, who heard that answer, and conceded that 3♠ answered the question positively, and hence alerted it, did not bid 4♠, which seemed odd. Not understanding why folks are alerting non-alertable bids when there is no partnership agreement and then taking action inconsistent with the purpose for the employed agreements, I called again. A different TD was equally irritated, not sensing the problem of UI. Fortunately, however, LHO misplayed 3NT horribly and negated the problem. RHO, strangely, did have five spades. I have no idea.

 

The next day, another person grabbed the bidding box cards and held them for about twenty seconds after I started counting (probably 30 seconds total). This new TD was at least kind enough to tell LHO (always LHO for some reason) that this was improper.

 

Later that day, I had the TD called on me finally, but for a strange reason. The auction was rather simple. Partner opened 1♠, RHO overcalled a minor, I bid 2♥, LHO (again, that nasty LHO) doubled, and this was passed out. The 2♥X contract turned on a guess as to the location of the other-minor Queen. So, I asked RHO what LHO's double meant. The answer was that this was not discussed. So, I asked to see his CC. On the CC, near "Responsive Doubles," there was a chicken scratch. I asked about the chicken scratch, and I was informed that this said "after overcalls." Noting a fairly complete and detailed CC, and recalling the "I don't know" explanation for the double, and the apparently blind decision to pass, I found this modifier strange, as he RHO had, in fact, overcalled. So, I asked him what "after overcalls" meant if it did not apply after overcalls. LHO then started to answer the question, unsolicited, saying something about his double being penalty. When I commented that LHO was not asked, RHO called for the TD. The complaint to the TD was that I was giving RHO the third degree in questions. The TD noted to me that I was entitled to their agreements only. I agreed but stated that I was asking that very question. RHO piped up, and get this. His complaint, verbatim: "He's just trying to figure out the hand." Now, that may sound innocent, and I did plead guilty that I was trying to figure out the hand. However, RHO said these words with an accusatory tone that suggested misconduct. The TD, apparently yet another gem, seemed more interested in the tone of the comment than the actual words and ordered me to play the hand, which was fine because that's what I wanted to do until these idiots called the TD on me. Fortunately, the ruling was the same -- play it out and call back if there is a problem.

 

Conclusions?

 

1. The West Coast has the same ruling for all infractions that I see on the East Coast -- play it out and see if there is a problem.

2. Hesitations and Hitches and Tanks, oh my!

3. This is the most important -- it apparently is considered poor sport in San Francisco for a person to actually try to figure out what is going on in the world and to not just play along, and that includes at the bridge table.

[matmat]

(always LHO for some reason)

selection effect

when RHO is thinking you're thinking too, so you don't notice?

[jtfanclub]

The first one was the usual tank, and the director should tell you to keep playing and call back if it looks like some inference was made. If all the directors sounded annoyed, maybe it's something you said or did, or maybe it's your interpretation. Ask your partner. Or maybe it is legit, I dunno.

 

The next one I'm not sure what the issue is:

 

1♣ -X- -P- 1♠, X apparently being a weak NT or some strong hand types.

-P- 2NT -P- 3♣, 2NT apparently showing some 18-20 count, 3♣ shows 5 spades.

-P- 3♠ -P- 3NT, 3♣, 3♠="I have 3 spades". 3NT="OK, we have a 5-3 fit. Pick a game."

-P- -P- -P-, P="I pick 3NT"

 

 

What's wrong with any of this? 5-3 fits often work better in 3NT, and it didn't hurt anything to bid it on the way. Because a delayed cue was alerted? I'd certainly alert it...I've never seen the bid mean a 5th spade (and unusual meanings for cue bids should be alerted). Should the 3♠ bid be alerted? I don't know, but it doesn't hurt.

 

Why did any of this require a director call?

 

Next one sounds very normal.

 

As for the last one...

 

So, I asked him what "after overcalls" meant if it did not apply after overcalls.

 

If I were the director, I'd get far away and pray for the entire table to spontaneously combust. All you had to say was "The explanation given contradicts their convention card". There was no need to get snippy and rude about it.

 

1. The West Coast has the same ruling for all infractions that I see on the East Coast -- play it out and see if there is a problem.

 

Um, yeah. In at least two cases, the results you actually got were better than what the director could have possibly ruled for you. You should be in favor of this policy.

 

I am curious as to how you think they should have ruled in these 4.

 

2. Hesitations and Hitches and Tanks, oh my!

 

Well, yeah.

 

3. This is the most important -- it apparently is considered poor sport in San Francisco for a person to actually try to figure out what is going on in the world and to not just play along, and that includes at the bridge table.

 

I have a feeling that you're being a bit...antagonistic, particularly based on that last one. Maybe you should have your partner actually do the talking?

[mrdct]

LHO opened one of a suit, heard a one-level response form his partner, and then heard me jump overcall 3♣.  He grabbed the pass card and held it in his hand for about 20 seconds (after initially waiting the standard 10), obviously debating the matter greatly.  I called, and the TD seemed annoyed with me for calling.  I suggested that the hesitation, card in hand, might suggest action.  The TD noted with a short voice, directed at me, that of course he cannot take inference.  The TD walked away and told me to call if there was a problem.

Perhaps the procedure is different in ACBL-land, but I don't really understand why you are calling the director at this point of the hand. In my part of the world one would ordinarily wait until the end of the auction and simply get acknowledgement that the hesitation occurred and then only call the director at the end of the hand if damage has indeed occurred.

 

The only irregularity I can see at the time you called the director is the incorrect bidding box procedure, but until such time as damage arises I can't really see what you have to gain by calling the director. As it happens you almost shot yourself in the foot as in these situations you usually want your RHO to take advantage of the UI to get the double chance of a good score (i.e. if 3NT makes you can call the cops and if it goes down you can quietly accept your plus score).

[paulg]

The ACBL prohibits the "reserving of rights" (Law 16A1), so technically you have to call the TD at the time of the alleged infraction.

 

Paul

[mrdct]

The ACBL prohibits the "reserving of rights" (Law 16A1), so technically you have to call the TD at the time of the alleged infraction.

 

Paul

You don't need to "reserve your rights", you just get your opponent to agree that there was a break in tempo. If your opponent denies that he tanked, then I guess you could call the director to get that point of fact sorted out.

 

So in ACBL-land if you don't call the director at the time of the hesitation do you lose your right to claim damage if at the end of the hand it becomes evident that one of your opponents illegally took advantage of UI?

[paulg]

The ACBL prohibits the "reserving of rights" (Law 16A1), so technically you have to call the TD at the time of the alleged infraction.

 

Paul

You don't need to "reserve your rights", you just get your opponent to agree that there was a break in tempo.

This is the same as reserving your rights. Of course many people just do this as it's the sensible way to do it, but the ACBL has explicitly said you should not.

 

If your opponent denies that he tanked, then I guess you could call the director to get that point of fact sorted out.

 

So in ACBL-land if you don't call the director at the time of the hesitation do you lose your right to claim damage if at the end of the hand it becomes evident that one of your opponents illegally took advantage of UI?

No, you do not lose your rights. But there may be greater debate whether a hesitation actually occurred, so in my experience people do tend to call the TD more often in the ACBL.

 

Paul

[Gerben42]

his was alerted and explained as "I'm not sure, because this is undiscussed, but I'm going to assume that we are playing over this 1♣ the way we would over some other 1♣ bid."

 

Why did you ask? Never ask about this kind of doubles on the 1-level before you really really need the meaning of the bid, just bid your hand.

[kenrexford]

his was alerted and explained as "I'm not sure, because this is undiscussed, but I'm going to assume that we are playing over this 1♣ the way we would over some other 1♣ bid."

 

Why did you ask? Never ask about this kind of doubles on the 1-level before you really really need the meaning of the bid, just bid your hand.

My wife asked about the double. She's a new player and not up to this sort of tactic. I never asked about the other two alerts, as it was my turn to ask, and she appeared to catch on.

[barmar]

I don't see the problem with the TD telling you to play out the board and call him back if necessary. No ruling is necessary unless the irregularity results in damage to your side.

 

I also don't understand why you were asking about the chicken-scratch next to Responsive Doubles. 1♠-2m-2♥-Dbl is not a responsive double auction; responsive doubles are when the the third bid is a raise of opener's suit; originally it was just 1X-Dbl-nX-Dbl, and but most now also play it in 1X-mY-nX-Dbl, and I assume this is what "after overcalls" refers to. The actual double, if artificial, looks more like Snapdragon, or it might just be "cards".

[jtfanclub]

1♠-2m-2♥-Dbl is not a responsive double auction; responsive doubles are when the the third bid is a raise of opener's suit; originally it was just 1X-Dbl-nX-Dbl, and but most now also play it in 1X-mY-nX-Dbl, and I assume this is what "after overcalls" refers to.

Link for entertainment purposes only (it agrees with barmar):

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/...sivedoubles.pdf

[JoAnneM]

I would like to point out the NABC's use Directors from all over the USA, not just from the local area, so there is no telling where your Directors were from. I don't think blaming a geographical area for your problems is justified.

[kenrexford]

I would like to point out the NABC's use Directors from all over the USA, not just from the local area, so there is no telling where your Directors were from. I don't think blaming a geographical area for your problems is justified.

Fair point. I was joking when I noted that. Meant no offense. :unsure:

[blackshoe]

So in ACBL-land if you don't call the director at the time of the hesitation do you lose your right to claim damage if at the end of the hand it becomes evident that one of your opponents illegally took advantage of UI?

From what I've heard (I have no direct evidence) some TDs seem to think so.

 

They're wrong. :unsure:

 

Law 16A1 says

When a player considers that an opponent has made such [extraneous] 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).

 

So, when an opponent makes or may have made extraneous information available to his partner, one should say something like "I believe there's some extraneous information here. I reserve the right to call the director." Unless of course, the SO prohibits this. The ACBL does so. So you can't call the director later - you must call him now. Unfortunately, the ACBL has confused the issue, because in their election, they say

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.

 

If they'd just shut up after the first sentence, they would have been fine. But they suggest that you wait until the (alleged) EI provider's partner does something you think may cause damage. On what will you base this supposition? Aside from that, Law 16A2 says

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.

 

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

IOW, you can't have "substantial reason to believe" that an infraction may have occurred until play ends or (if dummy was the putative infractor) when dummy comes down, and you shouldn't call the TD until you do have that reason.

 

IMO, the Law says that the SO may prohibit reserving rights. If that is done, then if a player believes EI may have been transmitted, he should call the TD immediately. However, failure to do so does not jeopardize his right to redress - which would not be based on the existence of EI, but rather on its recipient's putative use of it.

 

Note also that for club games in the ACBL, the club is the SO, and can decline to prohibit reserving rights if it so desires (at least until the new laws go into effect some time next year; I don't recall if this changes in those laws).

[blackshoe]

One further point: if an opponent disputes that EI was made available, Law 16A1 puts the onus on him to call the TD.

[mike777]

As I mentioned a month ago I played my first f2f bridge in years. The opp day after day after day...hesitate on almost every hand. In fact it is common they say such things as "I am confused" in the middle of bidding. I never called the director and I noticed my various pick up partners never did. This may not happen in the final of blue ribbon pairs but it does in brackets one and three. :unsure: