Confused about a BIT problem

[phoenix214]

[hv=pc=n&s=st7hajdt9732ckqt7&w=sqj85hq842dk64c83&n=s92ht73daqj8cj542&e=sak643hk965d5ca96&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1s(Limited%20to%2016%5Bplaying%20precision%5D)2d(Denies%20holding%204!H)3s(0-8%2C%204!S)4dpp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The problem on the board is that, the pass after 4♦ was with some considiration, so assume it is a BIT. Then W decides to bid game. As the game goes out, they make the game(Do not recall play, sorry)

The problem is that we are playing with screens(N and E on one side), and N called the director about this situation(I know S should, but I(N) knew S would not call it for this situation, so had to do that anyway.

Director rules that the results stand

1) My 4 ♦ pushes them into game

2) The BIT was on the other side of the screen, so opp does not know who made the bit

3) Some more point i do not recall.

 

Posting this to find out if the ruling is correct, and is it worth to appeal(Tournament format allows to appeal up to one weak after it has played)

[RMB1]

The WBF screen regulations say:

e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so.

f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is

made and the screen opened.

g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. ...

 

So if South did not draw attention to the break in tempo the TD may rule there was no unauthorised information.

 

If these WBF regulations apply to your event then there may be little to be gained by appealing.

[sfi]

Score stands, and on this evidence I would be very surprised if any appeal were not ruled frivolous.

 

I can't access the WBF screen regulations at the moment, but point 2 seems the most important playing with screens - the side receiving the UI relating to slow calls is the one to call the director. Here there is no reason for West to assume that partner was slow, so West's actions are unconstrained.

 

On a side note, point 1 is a ridiculous point for the director to make. Your 4D provides an opportunity for them to bid game, but it doesn't force them to.

 

Edit: Good to see the regulations quoted above support my statement. :)

[phoenix214]

Thank you for the answers. Also in the case, if I decide to make a poll on this and check if the action made by the W is logical, does that help anything there(if the results turns out that 4♠ is not a logical bid?)

[sfi]

No. From the information you have provided, there is no evidence that West has any unauthorised information. Since your partner did not call, there is actually evidence that there was no noticeable break in tempo from South-West's point of view. Without UI, West is free to choose any call they like, logical or not.

 

Remember, it's a lot harder to tell who caused a break in tempo behind screens, and why it occurred. It could easily have been you who was thinking about your call, including asking about the meaning of 3S and other possible actions West might have taken. Saying that the only reason for the delay is East's hesitation over 4D is simply not accurate in this auction.

[paulg]

The problem is that we are playing with screens(N and E on one side), and N called the director about this situation(I know S should, but I(N) knew S would not call it for this situation, so had to do that anyway.

You need to educate your partner as you will not win any appeal if he never calls the director for a break in tempo. He doesn't need to call the Director at this point (he can wait until the auction is over), but just get written agreement from his screen mate that the tray was slow coming back.

 

The EBL and WBF websites are not responding at the moment, but the latest (and recently revised) WBF screen regulations are now in its general conditions of contest (section 25).

[whereagles]

Since this is screens, BIT can mean North thinking of bidding 4♦ or East thinking of bidding 4♠.

 

In theory West has no way to tell what really happened, so it's normal to rule result stands. In practice table vibes may guide West as to who caused the BIT (yes, even with screens)... but that's simply too hard to prove.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=st7hajdt9732ckqt7&w=sqj85hq842dk64c83&n=s92ht73daqj8cj542&e=sak643hk965d5ca96&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1s(Limited%20to%2016%5Bplaying%20precision%5D)2d(Denies%20holding%204!H)3s(0-8%2C%204!S)4dpp4sppp]240|180| The problem on the board is that, the pass after 4♦ was with some considiration, so assume it is a BIT. Then W decides to bid game. As the game goes out, they make the game(Do not recall play, sorry). The problem is that we are playing with screens(N and E on one side), and N called the director about this situation(I know S should, but I(N) knew S would not call it for this situation, so had to do that anyway. Director rules that the results stand

1) My 4 ♦ pushes them into game

2) The BIT was on the other side of the screen, so opp does not know who made the bit

3) Some more point i do not recall.

Posting this to find out if the ruling is correct, and is it worth to appeal (Tournament format allows to appeal up to one weak after it has played)[/hv]

e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so.

f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened.

g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. ...

Phoenix214 might have been damaged by the use of UI. When there is a hesitation on the other side of the screen, the likely culprit is sometimes fairly obvious. Victims don't always immediately realize that the hesitater's partner might have taken advantage -- perhaps not until the team later examine the hand records -- when it can be hard to establish who drew attention to the hesitation. Thank you, RMB1, for quoting relevant screen regulations. What is the justification for permanently silencing the hesitater's screen-mate, which makes use of UI even more profitable?

[gnasher]

So if South did not draw attention to the break in tempo the TD may rule there was no unauthorised information.

But only if the existence of a noticeable BIT was disputed by West. I hope the TD would start by asking West if he had noticed a BIT. And, perhaps naively, I hope that West would answer truthfully.

 

If these WBF regulations apply to your event then there may be little to be gained by appealing.

In this case the Director seems to have determined that there was a noticeable delay, so the regulation you quote isn't a reason not to appeal.

Edited February 9, 2015 by gnasher

[Trinidad]

What is the justification for permanently silencing the hesitater's screen-mate, which makes use of UI even more profitable?

The justification is that it is irrelevant whether UI was sent. It is relevant whether it was received. And that can only be determined from the other side of the screen. If South didn't notice the BIT, then the UI didn't pass the screen... until North sent it through the screen, by calling the TD.

 

Rik