Entitled to think

[roghog]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=st984hq872d8cjt93]133|100|Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W

1D-1H-P-1S

3C-P--?[/hv]

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.

The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract.

At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.

South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.

As TD, how do you handle this one?

[barmar]

Did East hesitate appropriately before passing over 3♣? If not, that took away time that South could have used as part of his thinking time, so more leniency must be given, I think.

 

It might be good to poll players. If most say "Pass, WTP", then his hesitation seems inappropriate. But if you find several saying that it's a tough decision, the tank should be allowed.

[nigel_k]

IMO it is definitely not an automatic pass.

 

The hand is limited by the failure to bid over 1♥ and it actually quite close to maximum with four card support, and the jump to 3♣ opposite a very weak responder suggests a good hand.

 

Also, it is certainly not a hand where you strongly suspect it is right for opponents to compete further and you might even consider a penalty double if they do so.

 

Anyway even if you find that South had nothing to think about, opponents were not damaged so isn't it a matter for the recorder, not a director's ruling?

[axman]

IMO it is definitely not an automatic pass.

 

The hand is limited by the failure to bid over 1♥ and it actually quite close to maximum with four card support, and the jump to 3♣ opposite a very weak responder suggests a good hand.

 

Also, it is certainly not a hand where you strongly suspect it is right for opponents to compete further and you might even consider a penalty double if they do so.

 

Anyway even if you find that South had nothing to think about, opponents were not damaged so isn't it a matter for the recorder, not a director's ruling?

Improper deception is improper deception with or without damage and ought to be investigated.

[peachy]

Pass is far from routine IMO. Despite best efforts to keep unvaried tempo, when a non-routine or difficult decision is in front of us, the tempo might be affected.

Some things to figure out for TD since he is called. What was the infraction or illegal action? None. Carry on. I am very surprised that someone suggested a recorder form!!!

[Phil]

Considering x x AKxxxx AKxxx makes a fair game, better with the ♦Q and practically cold with the ♣Q, I would not pass, and I think that there is nothing tactical about a slow pass but its easy to see that it might talk your opponents out of a cold game since we have nothing in the majors.

 

However, this is dependent on your opinion about what a 3♣ call looks like.

[JLOGIC]

I think passing 3C is terrible, partner jumped when we've shown nothing and have JT9x of clubs and a stiff diamond.

 

Lol @ "weak hand"

[Codo]

I think passing 3C is terrible, partner jumped when we've shown nothing and have JT9x of clubs and a stiff diamond.

 

Lol @ "weak hand"

...but you have just THREE points. You surely overlooked this. :)

 

I would guess that jumping to 5 club will be better then passing- but there is no need to do so.

[jdonn]

It's not clear whether it's the law or hand evaluation that the player/pair who called the director don't understand. But they clearly don't understand either one or both of those things.

[JLOGIC]

It's not clear whether it's the law or hand evaluation that the player/pair who called the director don't understand. But they clearly don't understand either one or both of those things.

Well, if this guy had a 5413 0 count and thought for a long time and passed, they'd have a case. So perhaps they understand the law, but absolutely and totally don't understand hand evaluation, viewing this hand as equivalent to a yarb with no fit.

[RMB1]

As TD, how do you handle this one?

As a TD, I have to determine whether the "tempo" had a demonstrable bridge reason. That is what most of the discussion has been about.

 

If there is a demonstrable bridge reason to think then there is no infraction and no adjustment.

 

If there is no demonstrable bridge reason, the TD must determine if an opponent drew a false inference and was damaged. (Not the case here because the opponents found the par contract.)

 

The TD must also determine whether the offender could have known that the hesitation could work to his advantage. (This will usually be the case if a slow Pass in competition suggests values the passer does not have.)

[bluejak]

Anyway even if you find that South had nothing to think about, opponents were not damaged so isn't it a matter for the recorder, not a director's ruling?

The OP says 'England'. There is no such thing as a recorder in England, the EBU L&EC being of the opinion that the recorder system is against EU laws, if I remember the discussion correctly. Records of hands are taken, certainly, but by a TD as part of his ruling, so there is no distinction between a recorder case and a TD ruling.

 

As for the original question, I think barmar and RMB1 have covered the field perfectly.

[pran]

I believe England has the same STOP-regulation as I am used to, and in that case all the calls following the 3♣ bid should be covered by STOP as both sides contributed with a call other than pass during the last previous round.

 

So my first question as TD is if, and in case how, STOP had been used in this auction. Only if STOP had been correctly used and South waited (significantly) longer than the allotted STOP time before his call would the situation be evaluated for a possible score adjustment.

 

So what is the answer to this question here?

[mjj29]

I believe England has the same STOP-regulation as I am used to, and in that case all the calls following the 3♣ bid should be covered by STOP as both sides contributed with a call other than pass during the last previous round.

Stops are used for all skip bids and no other calls in England, so it should have been used before the previous pass. If less than about 15 seconds elapsed from the 3C call until the slow pass then I might rule no hesitation, but more than that is definitely not covered by the stop regulation

[Finch]

It's not clear whether it's the law or hand evaluation that the player/pair who called the director don't understand. But they clearly don't understand either one or both of those things.

if I recall the case rightly it was neither. It was the exchange of rude remarks at the table about South's behaviour that led to the TD being called.

[pran]

I believe England has the same STOP-regulation as I am used to, and in that case all the calls following the 3♣ bid should be covered by STOP as both sides contributed with a call other than pass during the last previous round.

Stops are used for all skip bids and no other calls in England, so it should have been used before the previous pass. If less than about 15 seconds elapsed from the 3C call until the slow pass then I might rule no hesitation, but more than that is definitely not covered by the stop regulation

No STOP in competitive auctions from the three level up? (regardless of skip bids)

[dburn]

No STOP in competitive auctions from the three level up? (regardless of skip bids)

Not at present. Indeed, I do not recall the suggestion ever being made at an EBU Laws and Ethics meeting, although it is not without merit.

[pran]

No STOP in competitive auctions from the three level up? (regardless of skip bids)

Not at present. Indeed, I do not recall the suggestion ever being made at an EBU Laws and Ethics meeting, although it is not without merit.

We have it, and as far as I know we have adopted it from a WBF (and quite likely EBL) recommendation?

[dburn]

No STOP in competitive auctions from the three level up? (regardless of skip bids)

Not at present. Indeed, I do not recall the suggestion ever being made at an EBU Laws and Ethics meeting, although it is not without merit.

We have it, and as far as I know we have adopted it from a WBF (and quite likely EBL) recommendation?

I know of no such recommendation - the procedures laid down by the WBF and the EBL are almost exclusively for events played with screens, where the problem does not arise.

 

The only occasion on which I recall learning of the idea was when I served on an Appeals Committee with the late Nissan Rand, who suggested that it was proper for any player to pause, without being held to transmit UI, in the round of a competitive auction that followed a skip bid (the case in question involved the five level, not the three level, but the general point is the same).

 

Again, the idea seems to me to have considerable merit, but I fear that to introduce it in England would be an extensive and irksome process.

[Vampyr]

Again, the idea seems to me to have considerable merit, but I fear that to introduce it in England would be an extensive and irksome process.

I have experienced this in Europe, and I found it to be very helpful. I see no reason why it could not be introduced in England.

[gnasher]

I have experienced this in Europe, and I found it to be very helpful. I see no reason why it could not be introduced in England.

I have experienced it in Norway. Where else do they do it?

 

I think it an excellent idea, though I would note that when I encountered this procedure for the first time it was on the third day of an event, so it seems that this rule isn't widely observed. That was a couple of years ago, though, so maybe things have changed.

[jallerton]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=st984hq872d8cjt93]133|100|Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W

1D-1H-P-1S

3C-P--?[/hv]

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.

The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract.

At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.

South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.

As TD, how do you handle this one?

As the TD, I would handle this case by asking South to explain why she felt she had a difficult problem and then I would consider the plausibility of her answer.

 

I would then read out all of Law 73D1 and Law 73F to the whole table and explain how these Laws apply (or not) to this situation.

[axman]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=st984hq872d8cjt93]133|100|Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W

1D-1H-P-1S

3C-P--?[/hv]

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.

The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract.

At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.

South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.

As TD, how do you handle this one?

As the TD, I would handle this case by asking South to explain why she felt she had a difficult problem and then I would consider the plausibility of her answer.

 

I would then read out all of Law 73D1 and Law 73F to the whole table and explain how these Laws apply (or not) to this situation.

I believe that there was a time when having a valid bridge reason [for needing the time taken to consider] was a sufficient defense to an assertion of improper deception. Past tense used because there currently is a lack of such provision in the law.

[blackshoe]

It is true that 73D doesn't use the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason", but that does not mean the TD should ignore the existence of such a reason in ruling. 73D1 says "…unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call is made is not in itself an infraction…", and 73D2 says "…may not attempt to mislead…", so I would certainly consider the argument "I had a good reason for breaking tempo" in determining whether that break was unintentional.

 

The wording of 73D1 implies, to me at least, that cases where the "players should be particularly careful" clause should be invoked in aid of ruling that there was an infraction should be fairly rare.

[axman]

It is true that 73D doesn't use the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason", but that does not mean the TD should ignore the existence of such a reason in ruling. 73D1 says "…unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call is made is not in itself an infraction…", and 73D2 says "…may not attempt to mislead…", so I would certainly consider the argument "I had a good reason for breaking tempo" in determining whether that break was unintentional.

 

The wording of 73D1 implies, to me at least, that cases where the "players should be particularly careful" clause should be invoked in aid of ruling that there was an infraction should be fairly rare.

THe law provides no mitigation for the infraction of :

 

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

 

Being not particularly careful is an infraction.

 

If there are implications to be made it is that the removal of the mitigation from law suggests that there are no mitigating factors. Which is quite the opposite of what you assert. Robert Frick has a thread running this month on blml concerning what I'll describe as jury nullification. It may be of interest or not.