Brighton 10 (EBU)

[VixTD]

This was also from the Seniors Swiss Teams:

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj876543h3d5c42&w=s9hjt75dt6cqjt953&n=s2h964dk87432ck76&e=sathakq82daqj9ca8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p2c4s5cp6c6sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

2♣ was an artificial GF or 23+ balanced (alerted)

North hesitated over 5♣ (NS disagreed about the length, but admitted a short pause for thought)

 

I was called at the end of the auction by East to note the hesitation.

 

Result: 6♠X(S)-4, NS-1100

 

I wasn't called back, as EW were happy with their score. Suppose the 6♠ bid could be argued to have caused damage, though, say if the vulnerability had been reversed. Do you think it would be right to adjust the score?

 

[PS Can someone tell me how to annotate the bids in the auction with the yellow highlighter and clickable explanations, please?]

[Cyberyeti]

There's a text box with the bids that you put the explanation in before selecting the bid.

[ahydra]

This was also from the Seniors Swiss Teams:

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj876543h3d5c42&w=s9hjt75dt6cqjt953&n=s2h964dk87432ck76&e=sathakq82daqj9ca8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p2c4s5cp6c6sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

2♣ was an artificial GF or 23+ balanced (alerted)

North hesitated over 5♣ (NS disagreed about the length, but admitted a short pause for thought)

 

I was called at the end of the auction by East to note the hesitation.

 

Result: 6♠X(S)-4, NS-1100

 

I wasn't called back, as EW were happy with their score. Suppose the 6♠ bid could be argued to have caused damage, though, say if the vulnerability had been reversed. Do you think it would be right to adjust the score?

 

[PS Can someone tell me how to annotate the bids in the auction with the yellow highlighter and clickable explanations, please?]

 

With the vulnerability reversed I think 6S is clear. You expect to go for 1100 and have absolutely zero defence against 6C. Indeed a hesitation would likely suggest North was considering doubling rather than bidding on, looking at South's cards.

 

If South had only eight spades but only went down 1100, I would disallow 6S since he now has no reason to expect to make a profit other than that partner has a trick. It does depend on the length of the hesitation though - a few seconds' pause should be ignored at high levels of bidding.

 

To alert bids you need to type the explanation of the bid before you make it in the hand editor. The box for entering the explanation should be under the bids. Alternatively you can manually insert explanations in the hv data. The auction starts with "&a=" and you insert an explanation by adding it after the bid in brackets (with certain characters, e.g. spaces, escaped in %hex notation), e.g.

 

&a=p2c4s5cp6c6sppdppp

 

becomes

 

&a=p2c(strong%20and%20artificial)4s5cp(slow)6c6sppdppp

 

ahydra

[lamford]

I don't think that 6S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, whatever the vulnerability. It seems more likely that partner was thinking of doubling if anything. You actually want him to have no values so that 7♣ is making.

[aguahombre]

IMO, a short pause by North is expected regardless of what he holds in a situation like this.

 

If the pause were established to have been significant, 6S might even have been the ethical choice. We don't have the insights into the players involved to go there, however.

[paulg]

It's the Seniors and I guess North actually fell asleep between his/her two passes - I presume this is mandated by the CoC for all seniors events.

[campboy]

I don't think that 6S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, whatever the vulnerability. It seems more likely that partner was thinking of doubling if anything. You actually want him to have no values so that 7♣ is making.

At the actual vulnerability I want partner to have a black ace (or the ♣KQ), so that 6♣ is making but I'm only going for 800. If I was trying to sacrifice against 7♣ I'd give them the chance to stay out of it first.

 

I agree that 6♠ would not be suggested with the vulnerability reversed.

[VixTD]

I wasn't sure whether 6♠ was suggested by the pause, nor whether the pause could really be considered a break in tempo given the auction, so I was glad I didn't have to make a decision.

[gnasher]

I wasn't sure ... whether the pause could really be considered a break in tempo given the auction

The player admitted that he paused for thought. That suggests that his tempo was different from it would have been if he'd had no need for thought, so UI was conveyed. If he'd said that he'd paused because he always pauses in this type of situation, or that he'd paused only for long enough to assimilate the auction, there would be less reason to think that there was any UI.

[blackshoe]

Was West's tempo in accordance with the skip bid regulation?

 

*I paused for thought" says "I had something to think about"; it doesn't say anything about how long I took. Does this player normally bid without thinking?

[barmar]

Was West's tempo in accordance with the skip bid regulation?

Even if it was, it depends on being reasonably consistent in following the regulation. If he often passes quickly after a skip bid, then the times that he pauses still pass UI.

 

The skip bid regulation is not a shield you can hide behind if you hesitate after a jump. The purpose is to mitigate the UI by always hesitating in these situations, so partner can't tell whether it's a real need for extra thought.

[VixTD]

The player admitted that he paused for thought. That suggests that his tempo was different from it would have been if he'd had no need for thought, so UI was conveyed. If he'd said that he'd paused because he always pauses in this type of situation, or that he'd paused only for long enough to assimilate the auction, there would be less reason to think that there was any UI.

Do you not think there are some bidding sequences that will be followed by a pause almost regardless of what the next player holds? Maybe this isn't one of them, but if a pause is expected and normal, then a quick call would be a break in tempo.

 

I know you're a strong advocate of consistent (or perhaps random) pauses and questions in certain situations to disguise pauses for thought, but it's difficult for the director to know whether what the players claim really are their habits. It seems unfair to rule as if I believe a player I know and trust, or one with a convincing manner, but not a stranger.

[VixTD]

Was West's tempo in accordance with the skip bid regulation?

 

*I paused for thought" says "I had something to think about"; it doesn't say anything about how long I took. Does this player normally bid without thinking?

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. Assume West paused appropriately unless you're told otherwise. (In actual fact I don't know.)

 

I don't think a pause over 4♠ really buys North much thinking time. East has opened with a strong artificial bid, partner has pre-empted in spades, North is probably going to be most prepared for a pass or a double from West, and is likely to have some thinking to do over the bid of a suit that has been introduced at the five level under considerable pressure.

[blackshoe]

Even if it was, it depends on being reasonably consistent in following the regulation. If he often passes quickly after a skip bid, then the times that he pauses still pass UI.

 

The skip bid regulation is not a shield you can hide behind if you hesitate after a jump. The purpose is to mitigate the UI by always hesitating in these situations, so partner can't tell whether it's a real need for extra thought.

You're missing the point. South made a skip bid. West is obligated to pause ten seconds, while appearing to think about his next call, before calling. Did he do so? if not, he has deprived North of some thinking time, which would militate against (but not necessarily completely) a ruling of "undue hesitation".

[Vampyr]

You're missing the point. South made a skip bid. West is obligated to pause ten seconds, while appearing to think about his next call, before calling. Did he do so? if not, he has deprived North of some thinking time, which would militate against (but not necessarily completely) a ruling of "undue hesitation".

 

Did South hold the STOP card out for 10 seconds, or did he remove it prematurely. If he did the latter it is understandable, because it is frustrating when players bid while the STOP card is still exposed, which, alas, many people do.

 

The trouble is that any pause after the STOP card is taken away looks like undue hesitation, even if it is still below the 10 second threshold.

 

I realise that this is tangential to the OP. Sorry about that.

[nige1]

PS Can someone tell me how to annotate the bids in the auction with the yellow highlighter and clickable explanations, please?]

There's a text box with the bids that you put the explanation in before selecting the bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj876543h3d5c42&w=s9hjt75dt6cqjt953&n=s2h964dk87432ck76&e=sathakq82daqj9ca8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p2c(Alert: Artificial GF or 23+)4s5cp(After agreed hesitation)6c6sppdppp]399|300|

 

Or you can edit your post.

The deal is encoded within hv square-brackets.

You can insert comments in round-brackets, as here. [/hv]