Protection...from themselves?

[Coelacanth]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1h1s2h2s3hp(After%20some%20thought)p(Summoned%20TD)3sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

In this competitive auction there was a slight, but discernable, BIT by North after RHO's 3♥ call. East summoned the TD (me) and asked for protection. North agreed to the BIT and the auction continued.

 

As it happens, I had just played this board the previous round, and I knew that 8 tricks were the limit for both sides. (Playing in 4♠ as North, a defensive error allowed me to escape for one off.)

 

Upon returning to the table at the end of the round, I asked West something like "I assume that you weren't damaged on (this hand)?" He agreed that they would not be seeking an adjustment. "You're not making 3♥", I noted, and he agreed.

 

Upon looking at the (electronic) traveler at the end of the session, I discovered that NS at this table had made 3♠ for +140 NS! This scored zero matchpoints for EW. Apparently they looked at the South hand (when it came down as dummy) and decided he "had his bid".

 

I don't have the exact hand in front of me, but it was along the lines of ♠xxx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣QT9x. Not the worst 3♠ bid I've ever seen, but pass is clearly (IMO) a LA.

 

I don't know how the play went, but I am certain that EW's defense did not rise to the level of SEWoG.

 

Taking into account the agreed BIT, the LA to the 3♠ call, and the careless but not SEWoG defense that allowed 3♠ to make, if EW had recalled me to the table asking for an adjustment to 3♥ -1, I would surely have complied. But they didn't ask. Maybe they were embarrassed by their defense.

 

So my general question is: as a TD, if you believe that an adjusted score is warranted, but the (putatively-) damaged side does not ask for redress, should you go ahead and adjust anyway?

[kgr]

So my general question is: as a TD, if you believe that an adjusted score is warranted, but the (putatively-) damaged side does not ask for redress, should you go ahead and adjust anyway?

I don't know what you should do as non-playing TD, but in the example you give I would not adjust.

Then you should have changed the subject to "Protection...for yourself?"

[Cascade]

So my general question is: as a TD, if you believe that an adjusted score is warranted, but the (putatively-) damaged side does not ask for redress, should you go ahead and adjust anyway?

 

Yes.

 

On this hand though I am not convinced that Pass is a logical alternative.

[axman]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1h1s2h2s3hp(After%20some%20thought)p(Summoned%20TD)3sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

 

 

Upon returning to the table at the end of the round, I asked West something like "I assume that you weren't damaged on (this hand)?" He agreed that they would not be seeking an adjustment. "You're not making 3♥", I noted, and he agreed.

 

 

This action by the TD is intimidation, and as such is a breach of his duty to be impartial.

 

The TD should have read the part of L16 that says- When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested- and found out just what the alleged infraction was [to demonstrate how difficult it is to do prior to S bidding 3S]; [then] instruct for play to continue and give the instruction to call him back if there is a problem [before agreeing to the score].

 

 

Personally, I detest players that can’t resist that little bit extra [read- BIT] as much as the next guy, in fact, more than most- but this stunt by E is intimidation and is sufficient to land him on my personal scumbag list.

 

I think that the TD would do well to help E understand that his premature TD call could well be construed as a tactic to influence the opponents’ bidding via intimidation [threat of scrutiny] and that is the kind of thing that L74 admonishes players to avoid [intimidation].

[wyman]

I think that the TD would do well to help E understand that his premature TD call could well be construed as a tactic to influence the opponents' bidding via intimidation [threat of scrutiny] and that is the kind of thing that L74 admonishes players to avoid [intimidation].

 

Why is east's TD call premature? If there has been an irregularity, the laws mandate the immediate summoning of the TD. If there is any dispute as to the BIT, better to sort it out now. Also, it allows a TD to explain the laws about UI to the partner of the BIT-er.

 

I don't think east did anything wrong, and calling him a scumbag seems wildly out of line.

[blackshoe]

Calling the TD's comment "intimidation" is nonsense.

 

There is no indication in the OP that East did anything to determine whether NS agreed there was a BIT, he simply called the TD. This is not proper procedure, but I suspect its root is lack of understanding of the law or laziness rather than intimidation.

 

I sometimes wonder if the people who are so quick to find coffee housing here in the forums are as quick to do so at the table.

[Fluffy]

My though proccess (not a TD) is this: passing 3♥ is "almost" no LA, leting 3♠ make is "almost" SEWoG, however this things do not add, almost is not enough when talking about laws and the correct ruling is to rule back to 3♥. Am I right?

[Cascade]

My though proccess (not a TD) is this: passing 3♥ is "almost" no LA, leting 3♠ make is "almost" SEWoG, however this things do not add, almost is not enough when talking about laws and the correct ruling is to rule back to 3♥. Am I right?

 

You are right (assuming your judgements are correct and they maybe but i have some doubt).

[bluejak]

To save time, may I say I agree with the last three posts.

 

As to the basic question a TD does not need to seek either infraction or damage where none is seen by the players. But once something is brought to his attention he needs to deal with it. So if he is certain there was an infraction and he is certain there was damage, he is required to adjust.

[axman]

Why is east's TD call premature? If there has been an irregularity, the laws mandate the immediate summoning of the TD. If there is any dispute as to the BIT, better to sort it out now. Also, it allows a TD to explain the laws about UI to the partner of the BIT-er.

 

I don't think east did anything wrong, and calling him a scumbag seems wildly out of line.

 

To demonstrate what it is to go down such a road:

 

If I am not mistaken, at the point in time of east’s turn to call the only irregularity [L16B3] that a brief hitch by north could be is an intentional attempt to communicate to south other than by call or play [as in a breach of L73B]. Now, did east accuse N of intentionally planning to communicate other than by call or play? NO!!! and, for good reason, there is too little to go on. That leaves the case where East called the TD to make south squirm.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised to find east hand held three hearts with at most KQJJ, scattered.

[bluejak]

The ACBL recommend that players who believe there is a hesitation call the TD immediately. Certainly other authorities, the EBU for example, do not, suggesting the time for a TD call is when an action is taken that may be suggested by UI. However, since East is presumably playing in the ACBL [despite all our requests the OP does not say so – grrrr - , but he is posting from the ACBL] you cannot blame him for following ACBL recommendations. Thus the suggestion that East is merely calling the TD to make South squirm is disgraceful, coming as it does from a player in the ACBL.

[Cascade]

The ACBL recommend that players who believe there is a hesitation call the TD immediately.

 

Where does one find this recommendation?

[Coelacanth]

Where does one find this recommendation?

(first off, note that it says ACBL in the topic description, so in order to eliminate any ambiguity, yes this was an ACBL club game)

 

The ACBL-published guide to the new (2007) laws, available on the ACBL website, says in part

While Law 16 has been reorganized and reworded, there is only one change affecting ACBL procedures and current practice. Under the revised law, when an opponent has made extraneous or unauthorized information available (e.g., an unmistakable break in tempo — hesitation), an ACBL player may announce that he is reserving his right to call the director later. If an opponent disagrees that unauthorized information might have been conveyed or made available (i.e., believes there was no break in tempo), the director should be called immediately.

 

I personally don't find East's director call objectionable. I think many players would rather not bother with "reserving their rights" and just get everything clarified straightaway. Or, as someone said upthread, 'laziness'.

 

Rather than focusing on this specific hand, and whether there were LA's to the 3♠ call, let's assume that there WERE LA's. Is the consensus here that the TD should adjust despite the fact that EW did not claim damage?

[wyman]

Where does one find this recommendation?

 

I have found this recommendation (and in one case, an admonishment for not calling immediately after the BIT/pass) from the last 3 (regional) TDs I've called after (BIT/pass) P (bid).

 

A written clarification of the appropriate procedure would be nice, however.

 

edit: thanks to Coel for posting that.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL recommend that players who believe there is a hesitation call the TD immediately. Certainly other authorities, the EBU for example, do not, suggesting the time for a TD call is when an action is taken that may be suggested by UI. However, since East is presumably playing in the ACBL [despite all our requests the OP does not say so – grrrr - , but he is posting from the ACBL] you cannot blame him for following ACBL recommendations. Thus the suggestion that East is merely calling the TD to make South squirm is disgraceful, coming as it does from a player in the ACBL.

 

Under the 1997 laws, the ACBL prohibited reserving rights, and thus said that the TD should be summoned at the time of an alleged hesitation. There is no such election in the 2008 version of the laws. Ergo, the ACBL has in effect rescinded the suggestion that the TD be called immediately. If TDs are still recommending it, IMO they're wrong to do so. That said, this is one of those things that's likely to take a while to change, whatever the intent of the LC and whatever the law actually says. Yes, I know it's been three years. I also know that I've heard players complain that the laws and regulations change "too frequently", even when the changes are years apart, and in some cases even when the last change was nearly a decade earlier.