Losing rights

[Hanoi5]

N/S are Vulnerable, E/W are not, bidding goes:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h2n3h5dpp5hppdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

East hesitated (notably, agreed by all) before passing, South called the Director who asked for the bidding to go on but after South doubled and E/W went 3 down (5♦ makes), the Director ruled that the score remained 'because South lost her rights by doubling'. I understand that sometimes players can double in this situation or bid one more and then expect the Director to change the bidding if the opponent was at fault AND their decision was wrong, but does that apply here? Is South to be punished in this particular situation?

[Elianna]

N/S are Vulnerable, E/W are not, bidding goes:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h2n3h5dpp5hppdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

East hesitated (notably, agreed by all) before passing, South called the Director who asked for the bidding to go on but after South doubled and E/W went 3 down (5♦ makes), the Director ruled that the score remained 'because South lost her rights by doubling'. I understand that sometimes players can double in this situation or bid one more and then expect the Director to change the bidding if the opponent was at fault AND their decision was wrong, but does that apply here? Is South to be punished in this particular situation?

 

If what you're saying is true, I want to know what the director was smoking.

 

South did not do anything crazy or gambling to try to take advantage of the possibility of the bid being rolled back: S/He doubled thus getting +500 instead of +150.

 

I just don't get what the director expected South to do.

 

Now, if the director decided to rule that West's bid was completely normal, that's a different matter (and not one that I am going to address, it's a matter of judgment and if the director feels that s/he can't judge then a poll can be conducted) but that's not what I understand that you are saying.

[iviehoff]

East hesitated (notably, agreed by all) before passing, South called the Director who asked for the bidding to go on but after South doubled and E/W went 3 down (5♦ makes), the Director ruled that the score remained 'because South lost her rights by doubling'. I understand that sometimes players can double in this situation or bid one more and then expect the Director to change the bidding if the opponent was at fault AND their decision was wrong, but does that apply here? Is South to be punished in this particular situation?

The director never "changes the bidding" for a hestitation, so he got that bit right. He should of course investigate the need for an adjusted score following W's 5H call after his partner's break in tempo (and a hesitation is not necessarily a break in tempo - at this level of bidding normal tempo is often slow).

 

A player never "loses her rights" because of a legal call or play they make. It may affect the adjustment if they do something which is a Serious Error or Wild Or Gambling (SEWOG). But doubling a 5H sacrifice that goes 3 down cannot possibly be SEWOG, unless perhaps 6D is extraordinarily self-evident. Even if double was SEWOG, he should adjust EW's score, and these days simply leaving NS's score as the table score is not what the laws say any more. In fact, if any call is SEWOG, it would be pass.

 

The director should have investigated whether 5H was an infraction (it won't always be, but often it will be on this auction), whether 5D is solid, and if so award an adjusted score of 600 to NS.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't really matter to the ruling, but when all four players agree to the hesitation, it is not proper procedure to call the director immediately, unless the RA has elected to require it. See Law 16B2. Also, 5♦ was a skip bid, and there may (or may not) have been a skip bid regulation in place requiring a pause by East before his call. If so, that should be taken into account in determining whether the "hesitation" was in fact a break in tempo in the legal sense. If it was not, there is no infraction here. As to the rest, I agree with iviehoff.

[mycroft]

Actually Ed, L16B2 does not make it improper to call the TD at the time of an agreed hesitation - it simply makes it not improper to reserve rights ("the player ... may announce ...") ("may" - "failure to do it is not wrong").

 

I can think of several reasons, especially in the ACBL, why I would choose to call the TD rather than reserve rights in an agreed hesitation situation. The two big ones to me would be "opponents are novices and probably don't know what 'agree on a hesitation' means for the hesitator's partner" and "opponents are experienced and definitely don't know what 'agree on a hesitation' means for hesitator's partner". A third involves skip bids, where "yeah, he thought, but he's supposed to!" - I know that shouldn't be an "agreed hesitation", but the opponents might not know that. A fourth - and one I have called, frequently - is "yes, he took 10 seconds pause after my skip warning and preempt, and he's entitled to that. Of course, the last three preempts I made this match he had his bid on the table before my hand left the bid". I'm never going to be able to explain why I thought there was a problem at the end of the hand.

[blackshoe]

Okay, maybe "improper" was an overbid. Still, the intent of the law is to allow players to arrive at agreement without involving the TD. I suppose though, that if most players take your approach (and I wouldn't be surprised if most do) that the law should be changed to conform with the reality. <shrug>

[pran]

Actually Ed, L16B2 does not make it improper to call the TD at the time of an agreed hesitation - it simply makes it not improper to reserve rights ("the player ... may announce ...") ("may" - "failure to do it is not wrong").

 

I can think of several reasons, especially in the ACBL, why I would choose to call the TD rather than reserve rights in an agreed hesitation situation. The two big ones to me would be "opponents are novices and probably don't know what 'agree on a hesitation' means for the hesitator's partner" and "opponents are experienced and definitely don't know what 'agree on a hesitation' means for hesitator's partner". A third involves skip bids, where "yeah, he thought, but he's supposed to!" - I know that shouldn't be an "agreed hesitation", but the opponents might not know that. A fourth - and one I have called, frequently - is "yes, he took 10 seconds pause after my skip warning and preempt, and he's entitled to that. Of course, the last three preempts I made this match he had his bid on the table before my hand left the bid". I'm never going to be able to explain why I thought there was a problem at the end of the hand.

 

 

Okay, maybe "improper" was an overbid. Still, the intent of the law is to allow players to arrive at agreement without involving the TD. I suppose though, that if most players take your approach (and I wouldn't be surprised if most do) that the law should be changed to conform with the reality. <shrug>

 

TD has a little job to do here:

 

Whenever I am called to a table (during the auction) because of hesitation I ask if there is agreement about the hesitation, and if the players confirm such agreement I just inform them that this is fine and they do not need to call me until someone really feel having been damaged by the hesitation.

 

(Of course I also check if the hesitation was required by stop regulation and in case ask whether stop was used)

[Hanoi5]

oops, wrong

[mycroft]

Ed, I am very happy with the change that allows me to reserve rights - in *most* cases, in the games I play in, "do you agree that that was a really long time to call?" "Yeah" "okay" works just fine. As long as we all know the consequences of that agreement, we're all good.

 

In the cases I put forward, however, that's not sufficient - the novices don't know what they're agreeing to, the experienced people don't think that the UI law applies to *them* (please note, very few of those, but we've all met one), and the skip bid issues ("that was a really long time" "he always does that" and "that was a really long time" "he's entitled to 10 seconds" "yeah, but he never uses it, except this time") are almost always contentious.

 

I was just stating that although that is no longer the only option, it is still not improper.

 

Sven, if that's *all* you're doing, I believe you're doing your players a disservice, especially the newer players. They get ruled against on a hesitation (legitimately), so when the opponents hesitate, they call you, you tell them to call back if they're damaged, and how do they know? Nobody's yet explained to them the problem. Also, if the people hesitating are another new pair, "call me back if you're damaged" doesn't give them any idea what they need to do to avoid the opponents being damaged.

 

If you're always working in Tier 1, of course, all of that goes out the window - they all know. In Tier 9, things are different.

[pran]

Sven, if that's *all* you're doing, I believe you're doing your players a disservice, especially the newer players. They get ruled against on a hesitation (legitimately), so when the opponents hesitate, they call you, you tell them to call back if they're damaged, and how do they know? Nobody's yet explained to them the problem. Also, if the people hesitating are another new pair, "call me back if you're damaged" doesn't give them any idea what they need to do to avoid the opponents being damaged.

 

If you're always working in Tier 1, of course, all of that goes out the window - they all know. In Tier 9, things are different.

 

Rest assured that I adapt my directing and ruling according to the level of the event and the experience of the players involved. I always try to make the players, and in particular inexperienced players understand what is going on and the purpose of the laws relevant for the situation. This also includes far more lenient (but always within the law) judgment rulings on inexperienced players than on more experienced players.

[mycroft]

I was sure you were; but others learning from here who hear "all one does as TD in these cases is determine agreement or not over the UI, and wait to be called back" may not know the assumptions behind that statement (everyone at the table knows their responsibilities and what constitutes damage).