tempo - too quick

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj7432h8d97ckq82&w=skq5hk952dk42cj54&n=s86hj76djt8653c73&e=st9haqt43daqcat96&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c(4+%20Hs%2C%208-12%20pts)p4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Strong pass system. 1♣ showed ♥s, 8-12 pts.

4♥ came after some thought, then 4♠ & double followed "in quick succession."

No screens, no alerts beyond 3NT.

 

-1100

 

The problem for EW is the meaning of double.

Systemically it means "I have high ODR, I'm happy to be at the 5-level."

It's a good method but West forgot, quickly.

 

Declarer called the director at the end and suggested that East should have bid 5♥.

That the decision to pass might have been influenced by the quick double.

East admitted that partner had a record of forgetting this agreement but that it was a verbal agreement, not in the system notes.

Director went away and polled a few of East's peers.

 

What did he rule?

[blackshoe]

Does Australia have a "skip bid" regulation? If it does, what does it say?

[sfi]

Does Australia have a "skip bid" regulation? If it does, what does it say?

 

There is no skip bid regulation in practice. They tried to introduce one a few years ago but it has been totally ignored (we don't even have stop cards in the bidding box), and there is no expectation of a pause after this bid.

 

The law may still be on the books for all I know though.

 

EDIT: It turns out they are. Nobody would know what to do if a stop card were played in most events.

[Cthulhu D]

ABF regulations are here: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFwbbb10.pdf

 

Relevant sections are below. Note that most conditions of contest do not mandate the use of the stop card. As sfi says, no-one ever actually uses it (and not all boxes actually have a stop card...). Bids at the 4 level are considered self alerting to.

 

1.5 The use of Stop Cards is authorized for ABF controlled Tournaments and recommended for use in other tournaments. The use of Stop Cards for a particular tournament, or for a particular event within a tournament, is at the discretion of the Tournament Organiser.

 

[...]

 

1.5.2 Before a player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed face up on the table in front of the left-hand opponent. After an appropriate period (approximately 10 seconds but less at one’s own discretion) the person who made the skip

bid picks up the Stop Card, whereupon the left hand opponent may then call.

 

[...]

 

1.5.4 When a player omits to use the Stop Card before making a Skip Bid, or apply the mandatory 10 second pause when required, the failure to do so may be taken into account by the Director, and subsequently by an Appeals Committee, when assessing what action to take with respect to possible extraneous information (Law 16).

[aguahombre]

Does Australia have a "skip bid" regulation? If it does, what does it say?

Do skip bid regs address the concerns about quick doubles of bids which were quick?

 

I don't think we can make a case that the fast 4S bid didn't give the next hand time to slow down.

[blackshoe]

It may not matter here, but if there is a regulation in force, the fact that people ignore should not lead to rulings that also ignore it (see Law 81C).

 

The other point I'd like to make is that whether an agreement is verbal only, or not in the system notes, is irrelevant. EW clearly have a "partnership understanding" as to the meaning of double here. Also that understanding includes the fact that West "has a record of forgetting".

[sfi]

It may not matter here, but if there is a regulation in force, the fact that people ignore should not lead to rulings that also ignore it (see Law 81C).

 

That may be, but in this case absolutely nobody - including directors - pay attention to it. The only time I have heard it even referred to was at a captains' meeting for a national event a few years ago. Someone mentioned that a pair had something about 'we require everyone to hesitate over our skip bids' on their card, and the tournament director's response was 'ignore that; we don't do that in this country'.

[blackshoe]

Then you all ought to get together and lobby the ABF to either rescind the regulation, or require its use and enforcement.

[sfi]

Then you all ought to get together and lobby the ABF to either rescind the regulation, or require its use and enforcement.

 

We're a nation of ex-convicts. We just ignore the regulations we don't like. ;)

 

Now that I know it's still on the books, I might have to do that.

[barmar]

Why are we obsessing over the skip bid regulation? First of all, the regulation specifically says that it's at the discretion of the TO -- does this TO require them?

 

And even if they do, it doesn't apply here. The player whose quick bid is at issue is West, not South. Since South didn't make a skip bid, West was under no obligation to wait. So I think we're just in ordinary 73D1 territory -- doubling too quickly probably isn't maintaining "steady tempo".

 

But as far as the ruling goes, I'm not sure that the fast double demonstrably suggests that he's forgotten the agreement. If someone is having trouble remembering an agreement, they'll usually take LONGER than normal, as they struggle to try to remember. If they bid quickly, couldn't it just as easily be because the agreement is fresh in their mind?

[Cthulhu D]

It may not matter here, but if there is a regulation in force, the fact that people ignore should not lead to rulings that also ignore it (see Law 81C).

 

I think the ABF is trying to say "If you want to use stop cards at your event, here is how you are going to do it, but the Tournament Organiser is operating at his own discretion when deciding if his tournament will use them or not"

[aguahombre]

We're a nation of ex-convicts. We just ignore the regulations we don't like. ;)

 

Now that I know it's still on the books, I might have to do that.

Agree. It takes all the fun out of ignoring regs, if you don't know about them.

[blackshoe]

Why are we obsessing over the skip bid regulation? First of all, the regulation specifically says that it's at the discretion of the TO -- does this TO require them?

 

And even if they do, it doesn't apply here. The player whose quick bid is at issue is West, not South. Since South didn't make a skip bid, West was under no obligation to wait. So I think we're just in ordinary 73D1 territory -- doubling too quickly probably isn't maintaining "steady tempo".

 

But as far as the ruling goes, I'm not sure that the fast double demonstrably suggests that he's forgotten the agreement. If someone is having trouble remembering an agreement, they'll usually take LONGER than normal, as they struggle to try to remember. If they bid quickly, couldn't it just as easily be because the agreement is fresh in their mind?

 

Well, I was wondering if the fast bid over the skip bid might affect whether the double was considered in tempo. Granted, normally we're more concerned with long breaks in tempo than short ones, but… anyway, I agree with your last paragraph.

[barmar]

Well, I was wondering if the fast bid over the skip bid might affect whether the double was considered in tempo.

I think we've had discussions before about a related situation: There's a skip bid, the next player doesn't wait the required time, and then the next player hesitates a few extra seconds. Some say that this hesitation is OK, because he's allowed to use the time he would have been thinking while his RHO was making his required hesitation.

 

This seems to be the flip-side of that: if his RHO doesn't hesitate, is he EXPECTED to take that time?

 

I haven't heard of any skip-bid regulations that directly address either of these. So I think it's up to TD judgement whether this is considered steady tempo.

[gnasher]

In my experience fast doubles are more penalty-oriented than slow ones. In particular, a "High ODR" double that doesn't have any aces is unlikely to be made quickly. With something like x KJxxx KJxxx Kx, you're likely to take a few seconds before acting. Hence I think it's clear that the UI suggests pass over bidding.

 

East is probably worth a slam try, but it's not clear what slam try to make - presumably 5♣ would be a suggestion to play there. Maybe East should just bid slam.

 

The UI also suggests 5♥ over a stronger action, so I'm inclined to adjust to 6♥-1. I'd like to see the poll results before deciding though.

[Cyberyeti]

East is probably worth a slam try, but it's not clear what slam try to make - presumably 5♣ would be a suggestion to play there. Maybe East should just bid slam.

Why would 5♣ be a suggestion to play there ? The club opener said nothing about clubs, if this hand wanted to put clubs into the equation he could have done so last time, 5♣-P-5♥ whould be the normal continuation if 4♠x is removed.

[c_corgi]

Over 5C P 5H P ? slam is still firmly on the agenda. x KJxxx xx KQJxx seems quite a likely hand, the club sequence being more in line with the high ODR X than the scattered jacks in a red 2 suiter.

[billw55]

East admitted that partner had a record of forgetting this agreement but that it was a verbal agreement, not in the system notes.

I'm going to take a different route here.

 

On the one hand we have an "agreement" that is verbal and not in the system notes. On the other, a possible de facto "agreement" based on a hidden partnership understanding. Why should we assume that one of these "agreements" is more valid or enforceable than the other? Neither is in the system notes.

 

If south had based his 4♠ call on MI, I would have more sympathy. How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

[gnasher]

Why would 5♣ be a suggestion to play there ? The club opener said nothing about clubs, if this hand wanted to put clubs into the equation he could have done so last time, 5♣-P-5♥ whould be the normal continuation if 4♠x is removed.

5♣ would be a suggestion to play there because responder might have long clubs. Playing a natural system with limited openings, do you think

1

♥

pass 4

♥

4

♠

dbl* pass 5

♣

is a slam try?

[aguahombre]

How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

He got the information the same way East did ---from the speed of the double.

[gnasher]

On the one hand we have an "agreement" that is verbal and not in the system notes. On the other, a possible de facto "agreement" based on a hidden partnership understanding. Why should we assume that one of these "agreements" is more valid or enforceable than the other? Neither is in the system notes.

 

If south had based his 4♠ call on MI, I would have more sympathy...

They may well have two conflicting agreements: the written one that double is action, and the implicit one that West sometimes intends it as penalties. Nobody is arguing that one agreement takes priority over the other, and nobody is arguing that there was damaged caused by MI.

 

The point is that East had UI, and the UI told him which of these two agreeements applied.

 

How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

He knew that there was UI from West's out-of-tempo double, he had heard the double explained as showing " high ODR" and he could see what East had when he passed it.

 

There's no suggestion in the original post that South knew or alleged anything else when he called the director.

[Cyberyeti]

5♣ would be a suggestion to play there because responder might have long clubs. Playing a natural system with limited openings, do you think

1

♥

pass 4

♥

4

♠

dbl* pass 5

♣

is a slam try?

It would be "I'm bidding 5♥ anyway, lead a club not a heart v 5♠" if I bid it, not sure if this is standard. Edit : so I couldn't bid 5♣, but was thinking more generally

 

But I certainly wouldn't put clubs into the auction as a playable suit now, if I was going to do that, I'd make a fit bid the previous round.

[c_corgi]

I'm going to take a different route here.

 

On the one hand we have an "agreement" that is verbal and not in the system notes. On the other, a possible de facto "agreement" based on a hidden partnership understanding. Why should we assume that one of these "agreements" is more valid or enforceable than the other? Neither is in the system notes.

 

If south had based his 4♠ call on MI, I would have more sympathy. How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

 

Presumably East explained the verbally agreed meaning of the double. I see no reason not to consider this agreement valid: East has made anti-self-serving statements at every opportunity, it seems unlikely they are not true.

[aguahombre]

Presumably East explained the verbally agreed meaning of the double. I see no reason not to consider this agreement valid: East has made anti-self-serving statements at every opportunity, it seems unlikely they are not true.

So, that means East admits to choosing from alternatives a pass suggested by the UI. All that is left, then, is for the TD to adjust from 4SX to something else.

[billw55]

He knew that there was UI from West's out-of-tempo double, he had heard the double explained as showing " high ODR" and he could see what East had when he passed it.

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

 

So I saw no reason that from the south's point of view, the fast double should be suspicious, nor east's pass of it.

 

But yes, I see that east may have UI here. Does the fast double suggest penalty? Perhaps .. hard to be sure.

 

I suppose if west had doubled in tempo, east would still be faced with a choice of which "agreement" to follow, but could now do either thing in clear conscience?