Is it a good ruling?

[A2003]

Appeal Case #7 at DC

 

Is it a good ruling?

East bid voluntarily 4♣ and after losing the board, now appeals for Break-in Tempo ruling. Is it not 2 way?

 

Is there any timing rule for bids? 3 sec, 4 secs, 5 secs, who maintains it?

How much time is allowed by the rule?

Is there no merit for North bids 3♠ when no defense to 3♣ is available in match point game.

 

 

Appeal case #7 at DC.

Disputed break in tempo (BIT).

Final contract: 4♣ by East.

Opening lead: ♥A

Table result: Down 1, E-W minus 100.

Director ruling: 3♣ by East making three, EW

plus 110.

Committee ruling: 3♣ by East making three,

E-W plus 110.

The Facts: The director was called after the TOURNAMENT APPEALS 3♣ bid and again after the play was concluded.

North vehemently disputed that there was a BIT. South said his partner plays fast and did think, but it was not a demonstrable BIT. East felt there was a demonstrable BIT. West was not consulted as the director judged that South had conceded the point.

The Ruling: The director judged that there was an unmistakable hesitation, in part because South's hand indicated that he had something to think about. He further judged that the BIT demonstrably suggested 3♠ and that pass was clearly a logical alternative. Per Law 12C1(e) the result for both pairs was adjusted to 3♣ by East making three, E-W plus 110.

The Appeal: N-S appealed the director's decision. West did not attend the hearing.

In screening, South said the BIT was up to five seconds; East said four to five seconds and North said no more than three seconds.

Both North and South felt that North's decision to bid was justified with or without the

hesitation. North felt the time elapsed was not a BIT, but a normal pause. South acknowledged he took a few seconds (perhaps three or four) before passing.

East claimed that North's action was dubious even without a hesitation. Holding only three trumps and secondary values makes bidding unreasonable after a BIT.

The Decision: The committee felt that despite the fact North kept stressing the point that three seconds does not constitute a BIT, the exact number of seconds is not relevant. The committee felt North's hand did not justify any further action and his bid was demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation.

The committee upheld the director's decision of 3♣ by East making three, E-W plus 110 for both sides.

The appeal was judged to have substantial merit.

[aguahombre]

the only problem I had with the ruling when I read it in the bulletin was the "substantial merit" of the appeal. By the LAW of total tricks, or any other criteria I could see, 3S was not warranted.

[peachy]

I think it is a good ruling. But what surprised me A LOT was the statement by the AC that the appeal had substantial merit. What merit? I cannot find any. It was a ruling delivered by establishing the facts and applying the appropriate laws and there was no way in my opinion that it could have been ruled otherwise.

[xcurt]

I agree with the committee decision, but I don't like the deliberations (or maybe the scribe did a poor job reporting the deliberations). Specifically did the committee ask north about his evaluation process leading him to bid 3 spades? The 3 spade call is really out of this world, but let's ask north to justify it, especially since he seems to have been happy to argue about fractions of a second re the tempo.

 

Also, is this a normal balance for EW? I have a hunch that east might have hitched when he passed over 2S. Is it more normal for east to prebalance with a 7-card suit or for west to balance with poor balancing shape and no intermediates? Make the east hand just a little bit worse or make a few clubs into small hearts and that balancing double is an insta-zero.

[TimG]

Let me make a case for no adjustment.

 

First let's assume there was a BIT or there is no need to go any further.

 

Was there UI transmitted by the BIT? The player who broke tempo over 3♣ was either thinking about doubling or bidding 3♠, that is he either had extra defensive values or extra offensive values. This is UI.

 

Was there a logical alternative to the action taken (3♠)? Yes, passing was a LA.

 

Was 3♠ suggested by the UI? This is far from clear to me? If the UI is extra defensive values, 3♠ was not suggested by the UI. If the UI is extra offensive values, 3♠ was suggested by the BIT. We do not know which the UI suggested. Since we do not know that 3♠ was suggested over Pass by the UI, there should be no adjustment.

 

Let's suppose that instead of bidding 3♠ the player had doubled. Once again we determine that there was a BIT and that there is UI that the player has either extra offensive values or extra defensive values. Pass is still a LA.

 

Was Double suggested by the UI? This time I think the answer is "yes". Double caters to either extra offensive values (partner can bid 3♠) or extra defensive values (partner can pass). So, if the chosen action had been DBL (and the table result was still 4♣ -1 -- meaning there was damage) I think an adjustment should have been made.

 

I am having trouble with my understanding of this Law; I do not mean this to be authoritative but rather present it so that those who are authorities might tell me if and where I have gone wrong.

[zasanya]

If Bridge authorities introduce timing devices at least for high level tournaments such issues can be resolved so easily.

[aguahombre]

I am having trouble with my understanding of this Law; I do not mean this to be authoritative but rather present it so that those who are authorities might tell me if and where I have gone wrong.

being no authority either, merely a reader of the Bulletin which contained the appeal and the comments in this thread--it seems that most everyone believed that any action other than pass must have been based on illogical or UI considerations and they chose to believe there was UI which suggested other than pass. Pass was not just a LA, it was the OA. The question you raise is a good one, but doesn't seem to apply to North's hand.

[Trinidad]

What surprised me most in the description of the appeal is that it seems that the AC reasoned something like:

 

- 3♠ is an awful bid.

- There must have been something going on.

- Pass is an LA.

- Adjust

 

Furthermore, the description is not really clear. I assume that the TD was called for the first time after the 3♠ bid, rather than after the 3♣ bid.

 

I am not sure whether there actually was a BIT. But the table director can judge that much better than I (or the AC) can, so we go with the director at the table and say that there was a BIT. His decision is better than any decision anybody else can make.

 

Then my reasoning is just like Tim's: The BIT indicated that South was inclined to do something other than Pass. This could be doubling or bidding on. What alternative was made more attractive by the BIT? Passing, doubling or bidding 3♠?

 

Doubling caters to all possible reasons for the BIT.

Passing caters to the possibility that South wanted to double.

Bidding 3♠ caters to the possibility that South wanted to bid on.

 

Therefore, we can demonstrate that a double would have been suggested by the BIT, regardless of the reason for the BIT. For Pass and 3♠, we can't demonstrate that the BIT suggested these alternatives. If we can't demonstrate that, then there has not been an infraction. No infraction means: Result stands.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

If Bridge authorities introduce timing devices at least for high level tournaments such issues can be resolved so easily.

How would this work?