Breach of Procedure

[lamford]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqxhaqt8xxdqxcxxx&w=sat9xxxhxxdkcj9xx&e=skxxhkxdjxxxcaktx&s=sjxhxxxdat8xxxcqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

2D(1) - X(2) - Pass - Pass

2S - Pass - 3H(3) - Pass

3S(4) - Pass - 3NT - All Pass[/hv]

 

(1) Weak only Multi

(2) An overcall in a major

(3) Game try in spades

(4) Agreed by West to be slow

 

This was a ruling from Pula where South called the TD to indicate that West had broken tempo over 3S. This was stated by the CTD to be a breach of procedure in that a hesitation can almost without exception only be claimed on the other side of the screen, and on this point of EBL and WBF screen regulations the AC had no reason to dissent, so that the table result (3NT+2) stood.

 

The AC all agreed that the ruling would have been much more interesting if North had called the TD. Do readers think that

a) bidding on after a BIT is demonstrably suggested to East?

b ) does the BIT demonstrably suggest 3NT, and if one finds that bidding on is demonstrably suggested, is that enough to disallow all bids other than pass?

[axman]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqxhaqt8xxdqxcxxx&w=sat9xxxhxxdkcj9xx&e=skxxhkxdjxxxcaktx&s=sjxhxxxdat8xxxcqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

2D(1) - X(2) - Pass - Pass

2S - Pass - 3H(3) - Pass

3S(4) - Pass - 3NT - All Pass[/hv]

 

(1) Weak only Multi

(2) An overcall in a major

(3) Game try in spades

(4) Agreed by West to be slow

 

This was a ruling from Pula where South called the TD to indicate that West had broken tempo over 3S. This was stated by the CTD to be a breach of procedure in that a hesitation can almost without exception only be claimed on the other side of the screen, and on this point of EBL and WBF screen regulations the AC had no reason to dissent, so that the table result (3NT+2) stood.

 

The AC all agreed that the ruling would have been much more interesting if North had called the TD. Do readers think that

a) bidding on after a BIT is demonstrably suggested to East?

b ) does the BIT demonstrably suggest 3NT, and if one finds that bidding on is demonstrably suggested, is that enough to disallow all bids other than pass?

Given the range of hands that might be opened 2D by this partnership [given W’s hand and E’s bidding], I would judge it dubious to ever invite a S game [thereby risking a minus <losing a S,H,C,2-3D>when a plus ought to be had] with the E cards on the basis that W is to make the decision on so little information. So, when W does not accept the invitation, but, does consider it at length, it is reasonable to judge that E forcing to game by bidding on was spurred by something more** than the cards he held, as in he took unauthorized inference from the pause.

 

**Noticing the four hands together, it is apparent that EW can produce 10 tricks by force in NT and 11 in S; it’s almost like E heard a post mortem.

 

Two comments-

1. I have the feeling that there is more information contained in 3H than a general invitation based on unknown values. After all H is the implied suit of N and 3H might well promise a H stopper, or ask about one, giving W something to think about.

2. If screen regulations are to be a factor in some ruling it would have been useful to have quoted them.

[nigel_k]

Pass is a logical alternative to 3NT or 4♠ and a hesitation by West does make bidding on more attractive.

 

From East's point of view, it isn't clear that the delay was due to a hesitation by West rather than South but that is a separate issue.

 

I am not a rules expert by any means, but surely a player must call the director when he/she becomes aware of an irregularity. So a regulation that prevents South doing so is contrary to the laws. Even more so, if South's action also bars North from asking for a ruling.

[Cascade]

Pass is a logical alternative to 3NT or 4♠ and a hesitation by West does make bidding on more attractive.

 

From East's point of view, it isn't clear that the delay was due to a hesitation by West rather than South but that is a separate issue.

 

I am not a rules expert by any means, but surely a player must call the director when he/she becomes aware of an irregularity. So a regulation that prevents South doing so is contrary to the laws. Even more so, if South's action also bars North from asking for a ruling.

A hesitation in an of itself is not usually considered an irregularity. The irregularity is partner taking advantage of the UI. If the break in tempo did not noticably transfer to the other side of the screen then there is unlikely to be any irregularity.

[bluejak]

We-e-e-e-e-lll!

 

I do not really like the regulation, which I think should be advisory not mandatory, but it is primarily concerned with calling the TD to point out a BIT. I think the people who wrote the regulation would point out that a BIT is not an infraction, so it is not against the Laws to stop a player who does not see the BIT directly from calling the TD.

[nigel_k]

Ok I understand that the hesitation is not an infraction. If South called the director when West hesitated and before East bid 3NT, then he needn't have done so and I have no problem with a regulation saying he may not do so.

 

But there clearly was as infraction by East in bidding 3NT after the hesitation.

 

The OP seemed to suggest that only North could have called the director - South may not call the director at all when the hesitation occurred on his side of the screen, even after the play reveals the infraction by the 3NT bidder.

 

Alternatively, the fact that South called the director 'too soon' meant that N/S lost all ability to get an adjustment for the damage they suffered due to East's infraction. That doesn't seem right to me. Surely the score should still be adjusted even if a procedure penalty is imposed on South.

[pran]

We-e-e-e-e-lll!

 

I do not really like the regulation, which I think should be advisory not mandatory, but it is primarily concerned with calling the TD to point out a BIT.  I think the people who wrote the regulation would point out that a BIT is not an infraction, so it is not against the Laws to stop a player who does not see the BIT directly from calling the TD.

If any player shall have noticed West's BIT it must have been SoutH who sits on the same side of the screen as West. Or were the screens the other way round here?

 

Was the hesitation so noticeable that East could draw inferences from it? How could he tell that a delay was not caused by questions and answers between South and West? There is after all a double by North in this auction. Could it not be reasonable for South to inquire about the 3♥ bid from East?

 

My reaction is to agree with the AC.

 

Regards Sven

[MFA]

The OP seemed to suggest that only North could have called the director - South may not call the director at all when the hesitation occurred on his side of the screen, even after the play reveals the infraction by the 3NT bidder.

Yep, a very important principle when playing with screens. Otherwise a lot of cases are created out of nothing when the screen mate protests about a break of tempo that really wasn't noticed at the other side (which is where it matters).

 

I agree with the TD that this is a very easy 'result stands' when the call is from the wrong side.

 

Had it been from the right side, and a significant BIT was established as a fact, the case would have been a delicate matter. I'm leaning towards judging 'result stands' on the basis that it's obscure what one really can deduce from a BIT behind screens here. East can't really expect west to take forever finding out about min/max, so a significant BIT is quite likely to stem from something else (e.g. questioning and/or south wanting to bid, or west thinking about system, which would not be an incentive for east to bid on).

 

IMO a good example of the merits of playing with screens.

[blackshoe]

Two things:

 

1. I think Paul was trying to change the scenario a bit so as to avoid getting sidetracked into a discussion of the merits of the regulation. He did ask "Suppose North had called about the BIT, instead of South?"

 

2. I think this is not a good place to discuss the merits of the regulation - we have another forum for that. If you want to continue that discussion, please take it to Changing Laws and Regulations.

[nigel_k]

The OP seemed to suggest that only North could have called the director - South may not call the director at all when the hesitation occurred on his side of the screen, even after the play reveals the infraction by the 3NT bidder.

Yep, a very important principle when playing with screens. Otherwise a lot of cases are created out of nothing when the screen mate protests about a break of tempo that really wasn't noticed at the other side (which is where it matters).

 

I agree with the TD that this is a very easy 'result stands' when the call is from the wrong side.

 

Had it been from the right side, and a significant BIT was established as a fact, the case would have been a delicate matter. I'm leaning towards judging 'result stands' on the basis that it's obscure what one really can deduce from a BIT behind screens here. East can't really expect west to take forever finding out about min/max, so a significant BIT is quite likely to stem from something else (e.g. questioning and/or south wanting to bid, or west thinking about system, which would not be an incentive for east to bid on).

 

IMO a good example of the merits of playing with screens.

Sorry I must be dense but I'm still not getting this.

 

The tray goes to the SW side, remains there for a while and then comes back and East bids 3NT.

 

The issue then is whether the delay makes it more attractive for East to bid 3NT instead of a logical alternative. This depends on the logic of the auction - the relative likelihood of South, West or both being responsible for the delay. If West hesitated unduly in circumstances where it is more likely that West, rather than South, would have a problem, then East has unauthorised information. This is so despite screens being in use.

 

I don't understand why North, but not South, may draw attention to this fact after East has acted or certainly at the end of the hand.

[lamford]

Yes, I did not intend to propagate discussion of the regulation; it does make sense however - it would seem wrong for South to draw attention to a BIT which was not noticed on the other side of the screen, so I can understand the principle behind it.

 

The AC did indeed suggest that it would be more complicated if North had called the TD. It could be that West asked about double at his second turn, and any delay was South writing down a reply. But I can be persuaded that a slow 3S shows more values than a fast 3S. But what does East need for game in no-trumps to be with the odds at IMPs? I would suggest Axxxxx and not much else, on the almost certain heart lead, will make it 40% immediately - and even without the heart lead, surely North has the ace here. So, I think that I would not adjust in the hypothetical situation as the BIT does not demonstrably suggest, nor demonstrably deny, the ace of trumps!