Simple hesitation

[bluejak]

A simple case, though this one was appealed.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=st96hj4dqjt2ca832&w=s843hk95d6ckt9754&e=sa2haq763d9875cqj&s=skqj75ht82dak43c6]399|300|Scoring: Swiss Pairs {MP}

--P--P-1♥-1♠

-2♥-2♠-P--P

-3♥-3♠-P--P

--P

 

Result:

3♠-1 by South

NS -100[/hv]

 

East paused before passing over 2♠. It was agreed that he had pasued, but that it was a short pause. Well?

[TylerE]

Assuming the pause truly was short (5 seconds or less, say), I would rule result stands. East has a better hand than he might for a 3rd seat opening at favorable, and I don't think the 3♥ by west is very much out of line either with 6331 shape. Players are allowed to think, and I would really hate to see the game get to a climate where people are afraid to play at less than lightning speed because they are afraid of getting reasonable results taken away from them.

 

If I wasn't simply going to rule stands, I'd be tempted to give EW a small PP. The 3♥ bid is pushing it a beat, but I certainly don't think pass is 100% obvious after an in-tempo pass of 2♠.

 

In any case, I think North totally earned the -100 by bidding at the 3 level at unfavorable opposite an overcall on that one quick trick wonder. In split score territory I don't think a ruling of 2♠=, -110 for E/W, and 3♠-1, -100 for N/S is off the map.

[cherdanno]

I cannot imagine passing out 2♠ with the West hand at matchpoints. But if I was TD I would still make a poll among peers.

 

TylerE, your comments don't make sense. The question is whether 3♥ is obvious, not whether pass is obvious. Also, if it is a close decision about whether to revert the table result, then certainly you should not be giving out a PP (which is basically an accusation of cheating).

[TimG]

I agree with Tyler that a short pause in a competitive auction ought not be considered a tempo break. Doesn't a quick pass without any pause for thought potentially pass UI? By complaining about a short pause, it seems that East is in a position where no tempo can ever be right.

 

It would be good practice if everyone always paused briefly before calling, especially in a competitive or potentially competitive auction.

 

It is not really relevant to the hand, but if North's 3♠ bid is used for comparison, it seems that there is no alternative to West's 3♥.

[TylerE]

Also, if it is a close decision about whether to revert the table result, then certainly you should not be giving out a PP (which is basically an accusation of cheating).

My point was that A: I'm sticking NS with the -100. B: *IF* I'm doing anything to E/W, a PP would really be the only option, at least here in North America where split scores aren't possible. I don't think I strongly advocated for that. My primary feeling is 100 to EW for both sides.

[blackshoe]

North's 3♠ bid was certainly an error. Whether it rises to the level "serious error, or wild, or gambling" is another question.

 

Was there an infraction? As Tyler says, players are allowed to think, but there's always the caveat that if they take too long in doing so, they put their partner in a difficult position. A BIT is nonetheless not an infraction in itself. If West took advantage of some inference he drew from East's pause, though, well, that's an infraction.

 

If there was an infraction, and the NOS were damaged, you adjust the score. If there wasn't, or they weren't, you don't.

 

Whence comes this idea that split scores aren't possible in North America? Are you talking about weighted scores (Law 12C1{c})?

 

If North committed a serious error in bidding 3♠, then NS get to keep that part of the damage that was due to the serious error. So the question then is "what was the extent of the damage, and how much of that is attributable to the 3♠ bid?" I haven't tried to work that out, but I don't think, at first glance, that "sticking NS with the -100" is the right answer, even if you consider the error serious enough to trigger this part of the law.

 

Giving a PP is not, in general, an accusation of cheating. It is certainly bad practice to promote the idea that it is. The purpose of a PP, IMO, is to point out to a player that he has committed an irregularity that either he should have known better than to commit, or that he should seriously endeavor not to commit again. Or both. You don't give a PP because you think the score adjustment isn't enough, or because you want to "do something" to one side or another when the laws don't tell you to do so, or to accuse them of cheating. In fact, if you think they were cheating you should probably expel them from the game.

[LH2650]

North's 3♠ bid was certainly an error. Whether it rises to the level "serious error, or wild, or gambling" is another question.

 

Why? 3♥ is cold, and he didn't get doubled. 3♥ seems fairly clear, so no adjustment.

[helene_t]

3♥ is a little wild for people who play 4-card majors. If they play 5-card majors, I don't see what E had to think about.

 

Anyway, East is allowed to think and a short pause may carry less information than a lightening-fast pass. Especially if they play weak notrump, since a fast pass might suggest a balanced 15 while it is not clear what a slightly delayed pass says. Even if E had nothing to think about (which would be the case if they play 5-card majors and don't open on junk with four in third seat) I think it's correct not to bid too fast this situation.

[jeremy69]

They were playing 5 card majors. The pause was agreed by the opponents and the player herself to be brief and denied at all by her partner! The committee, which I chaired, thought that to take action, whether 3C or 3H was close to automatic at the form of scoring.

[PeterE]

Did the TD and/or the AC made a poll among peers?

 

I hope the TD did. If the AC overruled the TD (I don't know TD's decision), did the AC poll some other peers?

[aguahombre]

"Simple" is never simple. 3C would have been my choice if West, but so what? East conveyed no information by the short BIT. His hand fits no reason for a hitch. And PASS is not a logicaly alternative for West.

Eventually the 3S-1 would have been reached, or 3H would have been reached. Let it stand. defending 3H would have been worse, so what's the problem?

[bluejak]

Also, if it is a close decision about whether to revert the table result, then certainly you should not be giving out a PP (which is basically an accusation of cheating).

My point was that A: I'm sticking NS with the -100. B: *IF* I'm doing anything to E/W, a PP would really be the only option, at least here in North America where split scores aren't possible. I don't think I strongly advocated for that. My primary feeling is 100 to EW for both sides.

Let us get the details straight.

 

Weighted scores are permitted [in fact, the norm] under Law 12C1C in most of the world, except North America.

 

Split scores [each side getting a different score] are permitted under Law 12C1E which gives different standards for the two sides [as far as I know, but there could be other jurisdictions] only in North America.

 

Split scores are also permitted under Law 12C1B everywhere if an action by the non-offenders is considered wild or gamblng [or a serious error unrelated to the infraction]. Perhaps we should call this SEWoG! :)

 

So in North America it would be legal to split the score, but since there is no element of SEWoG, not elsewhere. But I see no reason to do so.

 

As for a PP, the only justificatin for a PP is using UI in a way the TD believes is blatant by a player understood to be knowledgeable - no, not cheating. But the pause is legal, and if we are not adjusting then a PP cannot be reasonable.

[aguahombre]

wow...a lot of work to say the score stands

[NickRW]

wow...a lot of work to say the score stands

Yeah, that's about my thought. Short pause in a competitive auction - routine - yawn.

 

Furthermore, I personally feel that players who call the TD over such things are trying to take advantage of the rules and spoil the game. Apparently some TDs must have been pandering to this sort of behaviour or they wouldn't do it.

 

My 2 cents anyway.

 

Nick

[bluejak]

Some players will pass if their partners pass quickly, but will bid if they show some interest with a short pause. You think that not worth consideration?

[NickRW]

Some players will pass if their partners pass quickly, but will bid if they show some interest with a short pause. You think that not worth consideration?

Maybe some players do - I haven't come across them (that I've particularly noticed anyway).

 

What I do notice instead is that:

 

1) Some players are inexperienced and think for seemingly quite random reasons

 

2) Some players are of a nervous disposition and also appear to think for random reasons

 

3) Some players simply aren't very good and think for what seems to them to be good reasons, but few others would agree that it was a difficult decision so drawing conclusions about their pause (either as a partner or an opponent) is entirely unsafe.

 

4) Some players, though experienced and good enough by club standards, are not used to major tournaments and the standards that seem to be applied there.

 

5) Even if there is a pause and it signifies something, one still can't be sure what they were thinking of - if they pass were they thinking of doubling, bidding one more, hoping that they can make the same number of tricks in NT, did they think their pass was forcing or did they just give up saying to themselves "partner has a chance to bid anyway"? Alternatively if they eventually bid, what other alternatives were they thinking of? This all the worse at matchpoints where some doubles are effectively what an imp player would consider to be unsound

 

Then you get some a**hole as an opponent who wants to reserve their rights (and don't tell me they don't do this because they do) for what was literally a two second pause instead of the usual one second. And you're placed in the position of:

 

1) Disagreeing and calling the TD - who will take note of what people have to say and then probably say "play on" and call him back at the end of the hand - so the cloud is still hanging over the table - while you're supposed to be able to concentrate on the play (ha!)

 

2) Being as rude and as obnoxious as your opponent.

 

3) Agreeing (quite unfairly in my view) and, instead of just calling what you were going to call anyway, you also have to try to imagine whether a bunch of other players in the same tournament, who possibly don't so much as even count points like you do let alone play the same system, would make the same call. We see from threads on this board that even expert players frequently disagree about the LAs.

 

That may be bridge in international matches - it isn't any form of bridge that I want anything to do with again.

 

The EBU has recently been wringing its hands wondering why they can't get more club players to come to major tournaments. Some of us just find it an experience we wouldn't welcome even if the EBU paid us.

 

Nick

[Finch]

They were playing 5 card majors. The pause was agreed by the opponents and the player herself to be brief and denied at all by her partner! The committee, which I chaired, thought that to take action, whether 3C or 3H was close to automatic at the form of scoring.

I agree with this.

(In fact that's what I told them when they asked me about it before appealing)

[Cyberyeti]

North's 3♠ bid was certainly an error. Whether it rises to the level "serious error, or wild, or gambling" is another question.

 

Why? 3♥ is cold, and he didn't get doubled. 3♥ seems fairly clear, so no adjustment.

And also how reckless the 3S bid is depends what you overcall 1♠ with, I play in two partnerships where in one that is almost too good for 1♠, and one where it's not much more than minimum. Note that as is, 3S only goes off because the diamonds are 4-1.

 

I would bid 3♣ automatically, but not 3♥ with the W hand.

 

Is 3H definitely making on a trump lead ? I'm not clear how the play would/should go.

 

But anyway, no adjustment, I think W has a clear bid even if I disagree with his choice.

[bluejak]

What I do notice instead is that:

 

1) Some players are inexperienced and think for seemingly quite random reasons

 

2) Some players are of a nervous disposition and also appear to think for random reasons

 

3) Some players simply aren't very good and think for what seems to them to be good reasons, but few others would agree that it was a difficult decision so drawing conclusions about their pause (either as a partner or an opponent) is entirely unsafe.

 

4) Some players, though experienced and good enough by club standards, are not used to major tournaments and the standards that seem to be applied there.

 

5) Even if there is a pause and it signifies something, one still can't be sure what they were thinking of - if they pass were they thinking of doubling, bidding one more, hoping that they can make the same number of tricks in NT, did they think their pass was forcing or did they just give up saying to themselves "partner has a chance to bid anyway"? Alternatively if they eventually bid, what other alternatives were they thinking of?  This all the worse at matchpoints where some doubles are effectively what an imp player would consider to be unsound

 

Then you get some a**hole as an opponent who wants to reserve their rights (and don't tell me they don't do this because they do) for what was literally a two second pause instead of the usual one second.  And you're placed in the position of:

 

1) Disagreeing and calling the TD - who will take note of what people have to say and then probably say "play on" and call him back at the end of the hand - so the cloud is still hanging over the table - while you're supposed to be able to concentrate on the play (ha!)

 

2) Being as rude and as obnoxious as your opponent.

 

3) Agreeing (quite unfairly in my view) and, instead of just calling what you were going to call anyway, you also have to try to imagine whether a bunch of other players in the same tournament, who possibly don't so much as even count points like you do let alone play the same system, would make the same call.  We see from threads on this board that even expert players frequently disagree about the LAs.

 

That may be bridge in international matches - it isn't any form of bridge that I want anything to do with again.

 

The EBU has recently been wringing its hands wondering why they can't get more club players to come to major tournaments.  Some of us just find it an experience we wouldn't welcome even if the EBU paid us.

Players who think randomly are not passing information, and not relevant.

 

But overall, the problem is that attitude is what is wrong with EBU tournaments, and some clubs. Of course it is a small minority, but that is irrelevant: it still puts people off.

 

One of the problem attitudes is that player who thinks he can "get away with" breaking the rules, and he acts like a sillly little kid when the TD is called, and then blames the EBU [or anyone else he ca find] for a board where he did not follow the rules.

 

No, the main problem with the game is bad behaviur, and that includes very much rule-breakers who think they haved a right to break the rules.

[NickRW]

Players who think randomly are not passing information, and not relevant.

 

....No, the main problem with the game is bad behaviur, and that includes very much rule-breakers who think they haved a right to break the rules.

For sure random pauses don't pass information.

 

But with respect I don't think you're addressing, perhaps not even seeing, the problem. Nobody has exactly broken any rules in the scenario I am complaining about. Opps who think they can reserve their rights for a 2 second pause are not, in their eyes, doing anything wrong and do not know the nature of the player that paused - nor sometimes does the TD. Yet as such a player's partner you still get your hands tied and find the whole thing utterly unpleasant.

 

Anyway, whatever you and law makers think - I have voted with my feet. And, until such time as I see solid evidence that jumping down pauser's partner's throat with a "we reserve our rights" for short pauses has gone, I won't be coming back to any environment where it happens.

 

I might add that I've only found this in County events - never come across it in clubs - the UI laws are still applied in clubs - just not zealously to the point of taking advantage. I don't know why TDs in such events (and it must have come from the TDs originally surely) condone this sort of thing. Where has this come from? Is this what they teach in TD courses?

 

Nick

[bluejak]

The strange thing is that, as one of the TDs who plays the most, I have very little experience of what you say either directing or playing, and really do not think it happens in EBU events. Sure, there is bad behaviour - the worst I saw today was from a player who made a mistake. If it had been me no TD would have been required, but he expected in a thoroughly nasty way the rules not to be applied. Typical - and it happens in clubs as well.

[Echognome]

Having played a lot of club bridge in england, it varies tremendously by club. There were some clubs where I felt the opponents were outright cheats. They would pause at will to convey values, ask about specific bids in the auctions (and get the corresponding leads), etc. At these clubs, the TD's were unwilling to enforce the laws, because that's what the clientele wanted. They always felt they did nothing wrong and were outraged.

 

At other clubs, with good TD's (and the better players I might add), the TD's enforced the laws. Those that tried to take advantage of UI were dealt with and the occurrences were rare. I'm sure it helped that we had two national TD's, one regional TD, and one county TD.

 

I guess people sorted themselves accordingly and I know where I enjoyed playing. There are always two sides to the coin.

[Finch]

I half agree with NickRW.

 

I agree with both of you that the biggest problem is bad behaviour.

 

I think that asking for a ruling after any possible hitch in tempo is bad behaviour, and I do see it happening. I do see the attitude that says "because my opponents have hestitated/given MI/forgetten their system, I deserve a good board" and that is regrettable. I do see TDs sometimes ruling (IMO) too readily for the supposedly non-offending side.

 

On the other side, I see all sorts of things playing in clubs that generally would be unacceptable at a tournament. Aside from the vast amounts of UI given and used (particularly when it comes to alerts), the following have all happened in club bridge:

 

"You aren't allowed to think for more than two minutes"

(Player folds up cards, puts them on table, and says) "You thought for a long time, so I am not going to play a card for the same length of time"

[note that we are usually one of the fastest pairs at the club]

"That is very bad manners," (after a defensive claim) "because I always insist on playing the hand out"

I once stopped someone from opening out of turn by saying somewhat sharply (to attract his attention) "it's not your go", so he complained about my tone of voice to the director

 

Poor players are quite capable of behaving extremely badly, impolitely and unpleasantly. So are good players. It's nothing to do with the event, or the standard, or who is running it.

[jeremy69]

I'm afraid I am full of double standards. Whether I am entitled to call the director or not I generally don't at club level because

a. the player has no idea that they have done something wrong

b. their partner has not picked up on it anyway

c. they are old and infirm and going to score 36.8% on a good night

d. the club duplicate is essentially a social game

e. in at least one club I play in the TD is not to be found anyway except when calling the move (late)!

f. many of them won't use their law book and guess! That does wind me up so I try to avoid it if possible

 

I would be more inclined to summon the law at a tournament. I wouldn't do so for an insignificant length pause, I wouldn't do for a longer pause against some players who I know and trust. I would ask for a TD rather than try and sort out most technical rulings myself however if I did call the director and avoided doing the "Director (at 110 decibels), my opponent is cheating me" approach then, in my view, the opponents should not get upset but quite often they do and become hostile and deny everything whether it happened or not. At that point the people skills of the director is quite important in deciding which way it goes but once I've started.....................

[bluejak]

I find the best approach to calling the TD is to say:

 

"Oh, dear, I do not think that is right, perhaps we should call the Director since I am sure the rules are too complicated for me to understand."

 

Unfortunately my partner has a habit of spoiling the effect by falling off his chair, laughing. :P