Brighton 11 (EBU)

[VixTD]

This was from the Mixed Pivot Teams, an event in which the forced changes of partnership adds an element of uncertainty. I don't know how well these partners knew each other, just that they were all strong players. I wasn't the director called:

[hv=pc=n&s=sh98762dq86c97643&w=sakqt942h4dj7cqt2&n=s853hakqjtdak2c85&e=sj76h53dt9543cakj&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1s2h2s4h4sp(slow)p5hdppp]399|300[/hv]

Result: 5♥X(N)=, NS+650

 

The TD was called by EW, who complained about the 5♥ bid after the agreed hesitation. How would you rule?

[ahydra]

The X-with-zero-defence-then-call-TD looks suspiciously double-shot-shaped. But at this vul, you could argue that South should bid 5H the first time... hard to say. Did we ask South why he bid 5H? If, when he bid 4H, he thought that 4H is making (and we believe him) then I probably wouldn't adjust the score.

 

ahydra

[mr1303]

One of the players at this table asked me what I would've done in the same position. I said I considered 5H completely and utterly beyond automatic.

 

In fact, if partner doubled at the top of his voice after standing on the table, I would still bid 5H.

 

From what I recall (without intending any offence to the director involved) I think the director got this one wrong.

[TylerE]

Score stands. To me the hesitation could easily suggest partner is thinking of doubling rather than bidding on, so 5♥ may even be the ethical bid, if it's possible the hesitation suggests defending. After all, especially if North is known to have a sense of humour, trumps could be breaking as badly as 5-0 in 4♠.

[paulg]

Score stands. To me the hesitation could easily suggest partner is thinking of doubling rather than bidding on, so 5♥ may even be the ethical bid, if it's possible the hesitation suggests defending. After all, especially if North is known to have a sense of humour, trumps could be breaking as badly as 5-0 in 4♠.

This sounds right to me.

[axman]

This was from the Mixed Pivot Teams, an event in which the forced changes of partnership adds an element of uncertainty. I don't know how well these partners knew each other, just that they were all strong players. I wasn't the director called:

[hv=pc=n&s=sh98762dq86c97643&w=sakqt942h4dj7cqt2&n=s853hakqjtdak2c85&e=sj76h53dt9543cakj&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1s2h2s4h4sp(slow)p5hdppp]399|300[/hv]

Result: 5♥X(N)=, NS+650

 

The TD was called by EW, who complained about the 5♥ bid after the agreed hesitation. How would you rule?

 

A valid judgment [needed for a ruling] cannot be made before knowing the agreements to all the calls.

[gnasher]

I think there is no LA to 5♥.

[aguahombre]

Brighton needs a 1-1 ratio of tables to TD's, a dedicated forum, and a new shufflemaster.

[gordontd]

I think there is no LA to 5♥.

That was the view of the Appeals Committee. Ironically, as they were deliberating, it was discovered that at the other table in the match the auction had been identical except that the South hand had passed rather than bidding 5♥.

[nige1]

One of the players at this table asked me what I would've done in the same position. I said I considered 5H completely and utterly beyond automatic. In fact, if partner doubled at the top of his voice after standing on the table, I would still bid 5H. From what I recall (without intending any offence to the director involved) I think the director got this one wrong.

I think there is no LA to 5♥.

That was the view of the Appeals Committee. Ironically, as they were deliberating, it was discovered that at the other table in the match the auction had been identical except that the South hand had passed rather than bidding 5♥.

And yet rule-makers and directors deride my suggestion that, in UI cases, if convenient, directors should examine results at other tables, with similar auctions and agreements. There is an analogy with the outside world: where lawyers and legislators continue to fight a rear-guard action against objective evidence (photographs, recordings, fingerprints, videotape, DNA, ...). Judging from the evidence at the other table, the director's ruling seems correct.

[TylerE]

nigel1, in a case like this, that sounds like a psuedo-psychic-double-shot, not a logical or sane way of applying the laws, at least if you're advocating what I think you're advocating.

[blackshoe]

Verifying that each other table whose results you want to consider had the same auction, and the same agreements, as at the ruling table, seems like a lot of work.

[barmar]

The action at the other table(s) can be considered a substitute for polling, so I don't see why it should be disallowed.

 

But as pointed out, even if Pass is an LA (which the other table action implies it is), what matters is whether the UI demonstrably suggests bidding over passing. Since you can't tell whether partner was thinking of bidding or doubling, it doesn't suggest one or the other, so you can do as you wish.

 

We don't want to get in the habit of "If it hesitates, shoot it", where successfully guessing after partner's hesitation is essentially disallowed.

[ggwhiz]

We don't want to get in the habit of "If it hesitates, shoot it", where successfully guessing after partner's hesitation is essentially disallowed.

 

I agree. The major crime after such a hesitation is to cater to whatever the hesitation was about ie. making a flexible double which obviously doesn't apply here but in many cases as long as you make an all eggs in one basket bid I'm ok with the ethics.

 

These threads reminded me of a time I filled in for a Director at a club game filled with Seniors and have never heard so many SCREAMS for the Director in my life. Maybe it's an I better win today in case I'm not here tomorrow attitude?

[blackshoe]

I have often said, listening to director calls at club games, they sound an awful lot like a bunch of kids calling "Mo-om! He's picking on me!"

[Vampyr]

The action at the other table(s) can be considered a substitute for polling, so I don't see why it should be disallowed.

 

But as pointed out, even if Pass is an LA (which the other table action implies it is), what matters is whether the UI demonstrably suggests bidding over passing. Since you can't tell whether partner was thinking of bidding or doubling, it doesn't suggest one or the other, so you can do as you wish.

 

We don't want to get in the habit of "If it hesitates, shoot it", where successfully guessing after partner's hesitation is essentially disallowed.

 

The contracts at the other tables are available but not, obviously, the auctions; so what is a poller to do -- collar every pair who played NS and ask them about their methods and their auction?

 

The rankings in the event are accessed by a button on the top left in case anyone is interested LOL.

[gnasher]

If you poll people who were playing in the event, I think it's better to poll people who sat in the same seat than people who held one of the other hands, because they may have had the same or a similar problem. So it's worth looking at what happened at other tables for that reason at least.

[nige1]

The contracts at the other tables are available but not, obviously, the auctions; so what is a poller to do -- collar every pair who played NS and ask them about their methods and their auction?

The director could start with some of the 6 tables that played 4S. It's likely that some had similar auctions. If so, South must have considered pass to be be a logical alternative :)

The rankings in the event are accessed by a button on the top left in case anyone is interested LOL.

Well done Vampyr! :)

One of the players at this table asked me what I would've done in the same position. I said I considered 5H completely and utterly beyond automatic. In fact, if partner doubled at the top of his voice after standing on the table, I would still bid 5H. From what I recall (without intending any offence to the director involved) I think the director got this one wrong.

5 tables played 4SX. Assuming some had similar auctions to that point, the Souths who passed may have felt that that North's double expressed an opinion, probably based on spade values. With extra values but nothing in spades, North might well pass -- albeit reluctantly, as here :)

 

NB All this is just speculation that the director could check by asking players :)

[aguahombre]

If you poll people who were playing in the event, I think it's better to poll people who sat in the same seat than people who held one of the other hands, because they may have had the same or a similar problem. So it's worth looking at what happened at other tables for that reason at least.

They might have even encountered the same BIT.

[Vampyr]

If you poll people who were playing in the event, I think it's better to poll people who sat in the same seat than people who held one of the other hands, because they may have had the same or a similar problem. So it's worth looking at what happened at other tables for that reason at least.

 

Yes, I was just saying that I think that it would be impractical.

[campboy]

The director could start with some of the 6 tables that played 4S. It's likely that some had similar auctions. If so, South must have considered pass to be be a logical alternative :)

The director could start with those tables, but that would be a good way to bias the poll. He should try to ensure a representative sample, and to do that he needs to decide who to poll before he finds out what happened at their tables.

[mr1303]

My partner passed 4S (East made a negative double rather than bidding 2S), but she had only been playing face to face bridge for a few months and was very intimidated. I did tell her that she shouldn't have passed 4S here, and I passed 4S in tempo.

[nige1]

The director could start with some of the 6 tables that played 4S. It's likely that some had similar auctions. If so, South must have considered pass to be be a logical alternative :)

The director could start with those tables, but that would be a good way to bias the poll. He should try to ensure a representative sample, and to do that he needs to decide who to poll before he finds out what happened at their tables.

It's a deliberate bias. We don't know what the auctions were at other tables but if several Souths did pass after identical auctions (apart from the BIT), then that is a strong argument for Pass being a logical alternative.

[gnasher]

It's a deliberate bias. We don't know what the auctions were at other tables but if several Souths did pass after identical auctions (apart from the BIT), then that is a strong argument for Pass being a logical alternative.

It may be, or it may not. It depends on who your Souths are, and how big your field is.

 

First, you would have to limit your selection of Souths to peers of the player upon whose actions we were ruling. Having done that, you might be able to answer the question "Might some select it?", but that's only part of the test for whether an action is an LA. You would also have to determine whether your selection represented "a significant proportion" of the peers of South.

 

For example, suppose that 100 peers of South faced this decision. Finding five peers of South who passed in the same auction wouldn't make pass an LA.

[gordontd]

If you poll people who were playing in the event, I think it's better to poll people who sat in the same seat than people who held one of the other hands, because they may have had the same or a similar problem. So it's worth looking at what happened at other tables for that reason at least.

Although I would be happy to use that information if it came up, I wouldn't actively look for people in the same seat because their answers are more likely to be swayed by what worked. Players who sat in different seats are more likely not to recognise the hand, or else to avoid thinking through the consequences of what they do know about it.

 

In any case, despite the impression given by some other posters (not you) in this and other threads, the practical limitations of time and other demands on TDs mean that we can't generally be so precise in who we choose. Mostly we're just glad to have been able to ask a few players of suitable standard.