Brighton 11 (EBU)

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Of course, in this particular event, many and perhaps most of the partnerships will be first-time or once-yearly, so the bidding systems will tend not to be very detailed.

[nige1]

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.

Vampyr told us the size of the field and the names of the players.

First, you would have to limit your selection of Souths to peers of the player upon whose actions we were ruling.

Agreed. Gordontd (below) says that is hard but it's reasonable to start with players in the same event.

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.

IMO that is one of the advantages of the suggested procedure. Here, for example, by examining the results, you can put a (low) roof on the number of players who faced this (or a similar) problem. This information may be flawed but not as flawed as the other information, upon which the director, typically, bases his judgement. At worst, it would be a useful addition to that other information.

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.

The suggestion is not that the director just ask players what they would do, hypothetically, if faced with a similar problem. I agree that anybody who played in an event, may be prejudiced. The suggestion is that by examining results, the director might find players who actually faced a similar problem and determine what action they took, at the time, at the table. IMO, that is (relatively) objective information.

[gordontd]

The suggestion is that by examining results, the director might find players who actually faced a similar problem and determine what action they took, at the time, at the table. IMO, that is (relatively) objective information.

But it's completely unrealistic to think that we can sift through the results to find contracts that are the same and have the same declarer, ask if the auctions were identical (taking care to wait till the tables are between boards so as not to interrupt them), check their systems were broadly the same, and only then ask players what they did, while all the time continuing to take other rulings, make score changes, chase up slow players, get the venue to fill up water jugs and adjust the room temperature, along with the other routine tasks that we do.

[nige1]

But it's completely unrealistic to think that we can sift through the results to find contracts that are the same and have the same declarer, ask if the auctions were identical (taking care to wait till the tables are between boards so as not to interrupt them), check their systems were broadly the same, and only then ask players what they did, while all the time continuing to take other rulings, make score changes, chase up slow players, get the venue to fill up water jugs and adjust the room temperature, along with the other routine tasks that we do.

The OP is a typical case. With bridge-mates and computer-scoring It would take seconds to find the (usually small) subset of tables where similar events could have occurred. That task of initial investigation of reported UI irregularities could be delegated to a junior-director or helper. The rest of the investigation would involve more work but even if incomplete, could still provide useful information. If deemed infeasible for initial rulings, then the suggested protocol seems worth consideration for an appeal (or director-review if that supervenes)

[gordontd]

The task of initial investigation of reported UI irregularities could be delegated to a junior-director or helper.

Ah yes, that army of junior-directors & helpers we have wandering around looking for things to do.

[mycroft]

hey - I resemble that remark!

 

But yeah, "needing something to do" is a good one. As is "now the initial investigation is at third-and-fourth hand, with two possibilities to have critical information lost, three if you count JD giving the results back to the TD that owns the call." That can't possibly help the investigation, especially as it's the junior TDs that are most likely to have difficulty with UI/MI judgement.

[barmar]

Ah yes, that army of junior-directors & helpers we have wandering around looking for things to do.

The Watertown sectionals (5 miles from Boston) are big enough (4 sections) that we usually have two professional TDs and sometimes also one Tournament Assistant. But go another 50 miles to the New Hampshire or Rhode Island sectionals, and they're the size of a big club game, and one TD is more than sufficient.

[mycroft]

4 sections - say 50 tables - and three TDs? I'll go back to "looking for things to do" again :-). Especially if they're on three different clocks.

 

Oh, and a TA? Again, is that the person you want hearing from TD "here's what they said, go investigate UI" and replying to that TD what they found and believe? Unless the TA is both very knowledgeable of UI Law and a recognized A player, and even then there's the extended Telephone game...

[barmar]

4 sections - say 50 tables - and three TDs? I'll go back to "looking for things to do" again :-). Especially if they're on three different clocks.

 

Oh, and a TA? Again, is that the person you want hearing from TD "here's what they said, go investigate UI" and replying to that TD what they found and believe? Unless the TA is both very knowledgeable of UI Law and a recognized A player, and even then there's the extended Telephone game...

Where did I say three TDs? Two TDs and maybe a TA. One of the TDs was pretty busy dealing with computer and movement issues (for the 2-session pair game, figuring out optimal crossovers) while the other TD and TA handled director calls from the room. It wasn't uncommon to have two director calls at the same time. It also makes things easier when selling entries, as we could have separate lines for the open and novice games.