After a BIT

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3hd9865432cqt542&w=sajhkj8dqj7cakj87&n=skt74hqt973daktc3&e=sq98652ha6542dc96&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h2s(weak)d3npp4d4spp5cd5dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Director was called when South bid 5♣ as North had taken some time to pass after 4♠. The bidding continued and after consulting the Director rolled the result back to 4♠ making, instead of the 2 downs doubled the contract reached at the table went. Do you agree with the ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

I would be really annoyed to get this ruling as my argument would be that I was bidding 4N or 5♣ over an in tempo pass, and I might expect to be ruled against if I passed and it was right as partner's hesitation suggests a marginal double with enough in spades to think about it (which is likely useless to me in a minor) given my hand which would put me off bidding.

[blackshoe]

Director was called when South bid 5♣ as North had taken some time to pass after 4♠.

Did EW reserve their right to call the director later at the time of North's BIT? If so, did NS agree to the BIT?

[Vampyr]

Did EW reserve their right to call the director later at the time of North's BIT? If so, did NS agree to the BIT?

 

I have never really understood what “reserve one’s rights” is really supposed to mean. It seems aggressive and unnecessary. It is important to establish the BIT though, preferably before partner has made a call. If that cannot be done then the director must be called.

 

It is easier when partner, before making a call, says , “I realise it was slow”.

[pran]

Do your regulations include compulsory pause (like after skip bids) in competitive auctions?

If so then the "BIT" by North before passing after the 4♠ bid is no irregularity (unless the pause is excessive).

(FWIW this applies here in Norway.)

[Tramticket]

As usual you need to poll.

 

(1) What are would South bid without the hesitation? Is pass a logical alternative? [My guess is that pass is a logical alternative].

(2) What is suggested by the UI of the break in tempo. It might be that the BIT suggests that partner was contemplating doubling - in which case a pass is suggested. It might be that the BIT suggests that partner was contemplating bidding - in which case bidding is suggested. [My guess is that a poll would conclude the first of these two].

 

If, after polling, we do conclude that South made use of UI in bidding 5♣, then I would expect a weighted ruling as it is not clear to me that East will be making 4♠

[sanst]

Do your regulations include compulsory pause (like after skip bids) in competitive auctions?

If so then the "BIT" by North before passing after the 4♠ bid is no irregularity (unless the pause is excessive).

(FWIW this applies here in Norway.)

There was no skip bid after 3NT by W. This situation didn’t come up after a full round of the auction.

I agree with Tramticket that a poll is necessary. Would I have been S, I would have introduced my clubs too, because I’ve no tricks in the defense. But I wouldn’t have doubled 2♠, which would have required more HCP’s and preferably two hearts.

[pescetom]

(2) What is suggested by the UI of the break in tempo. It might be that the BIT suggests that partner was contemplating doubling - in which case a pass is suggested. It might be that the BIT suggests that partner was contemplating bidding - in which case bidding is suggested. [My guess is that a poll would conclude the first of these two].

It might also be that the BIT suggests partner has clubs - in which case bidding clubs is suggested. Clearly not the situation as it turned out, but pollees might think it likely.

[My guess is that a poll would produce no clear verdict on what is suggested].

 

If, after polling, we do conclude that South made use of UI in bidding 5♣, then I would expect a weighted ruling as it is not clear to me that East will be making 4♠

It looks to me as if he will be making one overtrick, not sure if there is any reason to weight between that and game or even down in some way.

[FelicityR]

I'm not a tournament director, but I'd probably would have hit South (and North, too for good measure) with my handbag!

 

Yes, distribution is everything, but how South dragged up three bids on that pile of tramtickets is anyone's guess? And, North, must have known what was going on as after partner's X of 2♠ and the opponent's bid of 3NT, and 4♠ as he/she just kept quiet.

 

I agree fully with the ruling. Actually the tournament director had a valid case that North knew that South was psyching, and should have awarded E/W a score of 4♠X making +790, in my honest opinion.

[pran]

There was no skip bid after 3NT by W. This situation didn’t come up after a full round of the auction.

I agree with Tramticket that a poll is necessary. Would I have been S, I would have introduced my clubs too, because I’ve no tricks in the defense. But I wouldn’t have doubled 2♠, which would have required more HCP’s and preferably two hearts.

 

Quotes from the Norwegian regulation:

A competitive auction exists (at the three-level and above) whenever at least one player on each side have bid, doubled or redoubled during the last previous round of the auction.

"The STOP procedure shall be used with any bid, double or redouble at the three-level or higher in a competitive auction."

[barmar]

I have never really understood what “reserve one’s rights” is really supposed to mean.

As I understand it, the intent of this is to avoid wasting time calling the TD until it seems like the recipient of the UI has actually taken advantage of it. The sequence of actions is:

 

A player does something that potentially transmits UI.

An opponent draws attention to this.

If the offending side disagrees that UI was transmitted, they call the TD immediately to resolve this.

If they agree that there was UI, the NOS may wait until actual damage results before calling the TD. If no damage occurs, everything proceeds normally.

 

I suppose you think that the TD should still be called immediately, so the OS can be informed of their duty not to take advantage of the UI. I guess the Lawmakers considered this to be understood. The TD's instructions would have to be pretty general, they can't tell a player something like "5♣ would be suggested by the UI, so you must not bid that".

 

Or maybe you're just saying that they can call the TD later, they don't have to "announce" that they're going to do so. I don't think this is expected to be an aggressive action, just a reminder that by continuing you're not admitting that there's no problem.

[sanst]

Quotes from the Norwegian regulation:

A competitive auction exists (at the three-level and above) whenever at least one player on each side have bid, doubled or redoubled during the last previous round of the auction.

"The STOP procedure shall be used with any bid, double or redouble at the three-level or higher in a competitive auction."

It seems that the auction in Norway takes a very long time. :)

[barmar]

It seems that the auction in Norway takes a very long time. :)

Got to fill those long winter nights somehow.

[barmar]

That Norwegian regulation seem quite reasonable. Expecting players to make competitive decisions at high levels in normal tempo is unrealistic.

 

On the other hand, is it really necessary to regulate this? If you expect players to have tough decisions at that level, does a hesitation demonstrably suggest anything in particular?

[pran]

It seems that the auction in Norway takes a very long time. :)

Standard time with reasonably experienced players is 7 minutes/board with an additional 2 minutes for changing to the next round.

so with 4 boards/round the allocated time/round is typically 30 minutes (all included).

I don't know how that compares to other jurisdictions?

[Vampyr]

As I understand it, the intent of this is to avoid wasting time calling the TD until it seems like the recipient of the UI has actually taken advantage of it. The sequence of actions is:

 

A player does something that potentially transmits UI.

An opponent draws attention to this.

If the offending side disagrees that UI was transmitted, they call the TD immediately to resolve this.

If they agree that there was UI, the NOS may wait until actual damage results before calling the TD. If no damage occurs, everything proceeds normally.

 

I suppose you think that the TD should still be called immediately, so the OS can be informed of their duty not to take advantage of the UI. I guess the Lawmakers considered this to be understood. The TD's instructions would have to be pretty general, they can't tell a player something like "5♣ would be suggested by the UI, so you must not bid that".

 

Or maybe you're just saying that they can call the TD later, they don't have to "announce" that they're going to do so. I don't think this is expected to be an aggressive action, just a reminder that by continuing you're not admitting that there's no problem.

 

Of course you must call the TD if there is no agreement on the facts. But if the facts are agreed, you do not somehow lose the right to call the director later, so you are not “reserving” anything.

[Vampyr]

That Norwegian regulation seem quite reasonable. Expecting players to make competitive decisions at high levels in normal tempo is unrealistic.

 

On the other hand, is it really necessary to regulate this? If you expect players to have tough decisions at that level, does a hesitation demonstrably suggest anything in particular?

 

Quite possibly. The Norwegian regulation is a good one.

[blackshoe]

I don't know how that compares to other jurisdictions?

Haven't seen four board rounds in a while. Generally, at the club we get, iirc, 6:40 per board plus about 30 seconds "move time". Assuming anyone is paying attention to the clock at all.

[pescetom]

Standard time with reasonably experienced players is 7 minutes/board with an additional 2 minutes for changing to the next round.

so with 4 boards/round the allocated time/round is typically 30 minutes (all included).

I don't know how that compares to other jurisdictions?

 

 

Haven't seen four board rounds in a while. Generally, at the club we get, iirc, 6:40 per board plus about 30 seconds "move time". Assuming anyone is paying attention to the clock at all.

 

Below 7 minutes is humming along. Our regulations say 7m 30s per board for a club tournament, with no extra allowance for move time - so a bit tight with 2 boards, far too much with 4.

[blackshoe]

Below 7 minutes is humming along.

Indeed. Yet we still get people wanting to push things along well before the end of the round.

[Tramticket]

Of course you must call the TD if there is no agreement on the facts. But if the facts are agreed, you do not somehow lose the right to call the director later, so you are not “reserving” anything.

 

The term "reserve rights" may be curious, but it is the wording used in Law 16.B.2:

 

When a player considers that an opponent has made [unauthorised] information available and that damage could well result he may announce [...] 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).

 

The use of the word "May" means that there is no compulsion to announce that you are reserving your rights to call the director and of course there is nothing stopping you calling the director at any time.

 

It seems aggressive and unnecessary.

 

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

[pescetom]

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

Not to the language as such, but it is reasonable to object to the cryptic way it is commonly used - "I reserve my rights" implying (but not stating) that if opponent does not object or call the TD then he is implicitly acknowledging that UI was transmitted. This is unfair to those who do not know what it means and stressful to those who have a vague idea.

[blackshoe]

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

I would agree with that, while at the same time observing that the fact that an objection is unreasonable does not stop people from making it.

[blackshoe]

Not to the language as such, but it is reasonable to object to the cryptic way it is commonly used - "I reserve my rights" implying (but not stating) that if opponent does not object or call the TD then he is implicitly acknowledging that UI was transmitted. This is unfair to those who do not know what it means and stressful to those who have a vague idea.

I suspect that's why many people believe that one should, instead of reserving rights, ask if the opponents agree that UI may have been transmitted. Okay with me, but the procedure is technically extralegal.

[barmar]

Of course you must call the TD if there is no agreement on the facts. But if the facts are agreed, you do not somehow lose the right to call the director later, so you are not “reserving” anything.

You're just informing the opponents that you might, rather than leaving them with the impression you think everything is resolved and surprising them later.

 

It's not required, the law says you may announce this.