He who hesitates....

[661_Pete]

...is victimised, maybe? All right, call me paranoid if you like, I found this upsetting and am wondering whether to chuck it in... :(

 

I believe I'm normally a fairly quick player - I usually have a range of appropriate bids stacked up, while waiting for opponents and partner to call, and covering most eventualities. Similarly when playing.

 

But very occasionally I have to hesitate. While doing so, a few days ago, I inadvertantly let my fingers touch the PASS cards in the bidding box. This was called out by one of the opponents, apparently it was a breach of etiquette or whatever (though I can find nothing in the Laws about it). He claimed I might have been signalling UI to my partner thereby. He said he was in half a mind to call the TD (though he didn't).

 

What the Hell!? We were in a competitive auction, we'd been bidding Spades and the opponents Hearts, and the bidding had reached 5♥ against me. It was a tough choice: I knew 5♠ wasn't making but would 5♥ make? So my only options - as my partner knew perfectly well - were 5♠ or Pass (or possibly Double - but that was unlikely). Wouldn't anyone have hesitated, with that tough choice? Surely by fingering the bidding cards I wasn't passing any UI to my partner? I may have broken the rules, but to what effect?

 

Anyway, if the opponent's intention was to intimidate me, he succeeded. In a fluster I passed, then made the wrong lead against 5♥ which was then made; when we could easily have got them down...

[neilkaz]

It's a really good idea to keep your hands off the bidding box while thinking!

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure if it varies by where you are, but I believe here just touching is not sufficient (you have to get it out of the bidding box with intent to play it I believe), and your opponent should of course have called the director at that point or shut up.

 

Yes it may create UI but that's the director's problem, much like pulling 2 double cards or stop/non stop bid.

[pescetom]

Not sure if it varies by where you are, but I believe here just touching is not sufficient (you have to get it out of the bidding box with intent to play it I believe), and your opponent should of course have called the director at that point or shut up.

 

Yes it may create UI but that's the director's problem, much like pulling 2 double cards or stop/non stop bid.

 

It does vary by where you are, over here for instance you have not made the call until you place the bidding card on the table - hovering over a card, touching it or even pulling it out are not enough. But if you do any of those things without actually making the call indicated then you have clearly transmitted UI to partner ("I am undecided between pass and some other call") and the opponent should call the director if he is concerned about that or about the successive actions of partner in the light of the UI.

 

So you didn't break the laws, but you did put your partner in a difficult spot, and opponent would do well to call the director rather than just muttering about it.

[Vampyr]

It's a really good idea to keep your hands off the bidding box while thinking!

 

Yes. If you get in the habit of finger-f ucking the bidding box, sometimes you may pass significant UI, even if you feel it didn’t happen this time.

[eagles123]

I really hate the "I should call director" shite, if you feel that way, then call director ffs. However, as others have said, it's much better if you can think without touching the bidding box!

[pescetom]

I really hate the "I should call director" shite, if you feel that way, then call director ffs.

 

It's a good idea to call him yourself in these cases, particularly if you feel there is an effort to intimidate you.

[paulg]

This was called out by one of the opponents, apparently it was a breach of etiquette or whatever (though I can find nothing in the Laws about it). He claimed I might have been signalling UI to my partner thereby. He said he was in half a mind to call the TD (though he didn't).

To my mind, this sounds like the type of player who is killing the game and making playing unpleasant. Someone making their own rulings at the table and bullying the opponents, both of which are against the Laws.

 

Of course it is possible that your opponent was trying to help and provide some education, not always a good idea unsolicited, but it doesn't sound like it.

 

I suspect I would have called the director after screwing him to the table.

[blackshoe]

I would have raised my hand and loudly called "director, please" the instant my opponent said he was "in half a mind to call the director". I would tell the director exactly what happened, and also that I don't appreciate the attempt to intimidate. If the director doesn't castigate the opponent, I will not be mollified by any attempts he makes to "smooth things over". I'm getting really tired of directors who think "make everybody happy" supersedes the rules of the game.

[mikeh]

You were wrong to touch the pass card. There is no doubt in my mind that this is UI to your partner. You can argue that you had few options and that touching the pass card was irrelevant, but from the perspective of everyone else at the table you might have been considering a double. Imagine the inference available if you toy with/touch the pass card and then double, compared to hesitating and doubling. In at least some similar situations, and maybe yours, the first suggests pulling far more than does the second. Heck, in the first one, you were clearly thinking of pass, while in the second one you might have been thinking of 5S, to make.

 

Seeing an opp play with the bidding box and then bid is a pet peeve of mine. It is inexcusable, although I accept that sometimes it just happens.

 

Having said that, your opp was out of line in a different but still deplorable way.

 

So both erred, but if the post is accurate, imo, the commenting opp was probably the worst offender. Say nothing or call the TD.

[blackshoe]

Law 16B1: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.

So yeah, touching a card in the bidding box before choosing your call "might suggest a call or play", so the fact that you did it is UI. But...

 

Law 16B1{a}: A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

The player touched the pass cards, and then he passed. What does this demonstrably suggest to his partner? To me, it would suggest "maybe, considering the UI, I should bid. Or double." The partner did neither. Wtp?

 

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

Does the opponent believe that "damage could well result"? If so, he should simply reserve his rights and not make extraneous comments. Especially when the nature or tone of such comments may well violate

Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

[barmar]

Not sure if it varies by where you are, but I believe here just touching is not sufficient (you have to get it out of the bidding box with intent to play it I believe),

There doesn't seem to have been any suggestion that touching the pass card means it's the bid you must make. They said it was a breach of etiquette and may transmit UI, and both are true. As several other people said, it's a good idea not to touch the bidding box until you've made up your mind. Similarly, when playing don't start taking a card out of your hand until you've decided.

 

The Laws don't address bidding box etiquette specifically, since they never actually mention bidding boxes at all.

 

Some people may fiddle with the box unconsciously. At the last NABC an opponent mentioned that I'd done it, and I'm not aware that I do it at all.

[msjennifer]

Sir.I personally feel that the authorities may be requested to make laws/rules about the bidding box etiquettes.One must avoid touching any card from the bidding box till one made up ones mind about the action one wants to take.Touching a card unintentionally does not convey any unauthorised information unless the player is known to do it in specific situations where the final decision is uncertain as in the example given.The opponent was rude in talking to you for the hesitancy.He should have called the director forthwith to protect his rights ( without any words or expression of dissent.)

[aawk]

Maybe you should call the director on him because he said he should call the director and didn't which could send a message to his partner :) . But don't worry if the director is called let him decide, if not and you wonder if it was not allowed ask the (or any) director after the match is ended.

[ray_p]

It is sad that the incident has left you feeling like this. Every one is obliged to treat their opponents (and partner) with curtesy and respect, and has the right to expect the same from their opponents whether mistakes were made or not. If the opponents have left you feeling like this after the incident, then I would say there was a breach of good etiquette.

 

The director is there to help ensure everyone enjoys their game. I would suggest that if such an occasion arose again, the best action is to call the director and inform him that your opponent has rudely directed an objection to you (or your partner), which he should have voiced to him (the director). The director can then address both the etiquette and technical issues in a calm and constructive manner.

 

However on the technical issue of play the director will advise you that you were in error; any variation in play, long (or short) bidding time, or touching of other cards in the bidding box can constitute unauthorised information (and Pass is in a different section of the bidding box to Bids so hard to touch accidentally and is usually 'thinking with your fingers'!). Just the evidence you are choosing between two bids gives your partner a subliminal suggestion that could unfairly influence their bid.

 

And after any slow bids, assume your partner is usually morally obliged to pass to visibly demonstrate they did not use unauthorised information - so make your slow bid final and definitive, and assume your partner will not correct it.

 

But put this occasion behind you and if you don't like the people in that club try finding a different one!

[waynemorte]

...is victimised, maybe? All right, call me paranoid if you like, I found this upsetting and am wondering whether to chuck it in... :(

 

I believe I'm normally a fairly quick player - I usually have a range of appropriate bids stacked up, while waiting for opponents and partner to call, and covering most eventualities. Similarly when playing.

 

But very occasionally I have to hesitate. While doing so, a few days ago, I inadvertantly let my fingers touch the PASS cards in the bidding box. This was called out by one of the opponents, apparently it was a breach of etiquette or whatever (though I can find nothing in the Laws about it). He claimed I might have been signalling UI to my partner thereby. He said he was in half a mind to call the TD (though he didn't).

 

What the Hell!? We were in a competitive auction, we'd been bidding Spades and the opponents Hearts, and the bidding had reached 5♥ against me. It was a tough choice: I knew 5♠ wasn't making but would 5♥ make? So my only options - as my partner knew perfectly well - were 5♠ or Pass (or possibly Double - but that was unlikely). Wouldn't anyone have hesitated, with that tough choice? Surely by fingering the bidding cards I wasn't passing any UI to my partner? I may have broken the rules, but to what effect?

 

Anyway, if the opponent's intention was to intimidate me, he succeeded. In a fluster I passed, then made the wrong lead against 5♥ which was then made; when we could easily have got them down...

 

 

Playing with people like that are what makes the game unpleasant and sucks all the fun out of the game, pedants the lot of em... why would you want to spend lots of your spare time with people that.

[Vampyr]

Maybe you should call the director on him

 

A lot of bad feeling is created when people have this mindset of calling the director “on” someone. Similarly, as others have commented, “threatening” to call the director Is bullshit. The directors are not our mummy or our kindergarten teacher.

 

Using the phrase “pigging someone” should be an offence, as it helps create the attitude above.

[pescetom]

Using the phrase “pigging someone” should be an offence, as it helps create the attitude above.

 

I've never heard that phrase, is it American?

 

I think the Director has some fault if players don't understand that it is absolutely normal for him to be present at table whenever it is necessary to decide what to do.

[Left2Right]

Something no one has added, but I will because for tournament players, it's as important as any other facet of the game.

 

When your opponent makes a remark that is tantamount to calling you a cheat or accuses you of unethical activity, he has transgressed to the point of warranting disciplinary action.

 

If I had been you, I would not merely have called the Director, I would have asked the Director for a Conduct and Ethics Committee hearing (suppressing your own anger as much as possible, of course). If this was something other than a local club game, better committees will come down hard on those who transgress as your opponent did.

 

I was involved in a similar situation at a Regional in the western U.S. and requested the committee hearing from Director. I was very young then and it was the first time I had ever dared such a request.

 

To my great surprise, when she returned with the proper form to fill out, she whispered in my ear, "We all hope you'll follow through with this." Turns out, she and the other directors and the powers that be were gunning for players who were making life unpleasant for others. But only the injured party can initiate such action (not the management).

 

The committee barred the offender from the remainder of the tournament and put her on 6 months ACBL-wide probation, which means that any further such infractions during that time anywhere in North America would be subject to much more severe penalties.

 

* * *

 

One more thing: even if you fingered the pass card and eventually chose some other action, the onus is on your partner, not you. If asked by the opponents, Directors should look at your partner's hand to see whether partner's action is less reasonable than any other had you not fingered the pass card.

 

It sounds to me like you were looking at your cards instead of the bidding box when your hand passed over it. If so, that kind of mechanical error does not constitute U.I.

[Vampyr]

It sounds to me like you were looking at your cards instead of the bidding box when your hand passed over it. If so, that kind of mechanical error does not constitute U.I.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[mikestar13]

I've never heard that phrase, is it American?

 

I think the Director has some fault if players don't understand that it is absolutely normal for him to be present at table whenever it is necessary to decide what to do.

 

Yes, it is American. It's in the Urban Dictionary. Used of a police officer it means "to commit police embarrassment, presumably for fun." By analogy, in bridge a director who rules against a player on his own motion is "pigging" that player, while another player who calls the director is "pigging" that player. Assuming the erroneous attitude that director calls/rulings are harassment.

The other meaning in the Urban Dictionary is completely different and not relevant to this situation.

 

[blackshoe]

Yes, it is American. It's in the Urban Dictionary. Used of a police officer it means "to commit police embarrassment, presumably for fun." By analogy, in bridge a director who rules against a player on his own motion is "pigging" that player, while another player who calls the director is "pigging" that player. Assuming the erroneous attitude that director calls/rulings are harassment.

The other meaning in the Urban Dictionary is completely different and not relevant to this situation.

72 years I've been an American, and throughout most of them I've lived here. First time I've heard of this term.

[aawk]

A lot of bad feeling is created when people have this mindset of calling the director “on” someone. Similarly, as others have commented, “threatening” to call the director Is bullshit. The directors are not our mummy or our kindergarten teacher.

 

Using the phrase “pigging someone” should be an offence, as it helps create the attitude above.

 

 

IT was a joke strange you didn't get that I even put a smile emoticon in it.

[barmar]

72 years I've been an American, and throughout most of them I've lived here. First time I've heard of this term.

Not quite 72, but I've also never heard it. But I've also never been part of a community where we calls cops "pigs".

 

Where was it used here, I don't see anything before Vampyr's response.

[Vampyr]

Not quite 72, but I've also never heard it. But I've also never been part of a community where we calls cops "pigs".

 

Where was it used here, I don't see anything before Vampyr's response.

 

I have actually heard the term only in the UK.