[o_fata]

Hi guys,

During the European Junior Teams Championship I called the director for the following bidding:

N S
2D* 4H**
all pass


2D was alerted as 5+major with 6-9 HCP; 4H was bided after a break in tempo and was alerted on my part of screen as "to play" and "not sure what it is" on the other side. Their CC stated that 4H was P/C. This was passed around; N had 6 spades and heart singleton.

I called the TD at the end of the board who decided that nothing can be changed since my p failed to call him (he was on the other side of the hesitation); even though both N and S agreed with the break in tempo. How can this be right?

[bluejak]

It is a matter of regulation now, I understand. When you play a game of bridge you have agreed to follow the Laws and Regulations: the fact that you do not know or understand all of them is unfortunate, but perfectly normal!!!

[iviehoff]

o_fata, on Jul 22 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

I called the TD at the end of the board who decided that nothing can be changed since my p failed to call him (he was on the other side of the hesitation); even though both N and S agreed with the break in tempo. How can this be right?

I presume the TD was not saying that "nothing" whatsoever can be changed, but only that you can't get a UI ruling on the basis of a hesitation unless you call the director to establish the hesitation at the correct time, under the regulations of the event. Rulings on other irregulaties, eg misinformation, or CPU (fielding), should still be available if appropriate.

OP may just be telling the story of the hand to explain how she came to learn of the regulations which surprised her, rather than intending to imply she suffered any damage from it. But if there was any damage it doesn't seem to me to be likely that it was occasioned by the UI from the hesitation, but rather from the other possible irregularities I mentioned. Is this perhaps director error in failing to realise that this was not, in fact, a hesitation case?

Edited to correct the pronouns.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2009-July-23, 09:39

[bluejak]

Maybe so.

But as far as the hesitation was concerned my understanding is that you will not get a UI ruling if the hesitation is reported from the wrong side of the screen. Another barking regulation, but c'est la vie.

[helene_t]

How would the hesitation damage the defenders? Does a slow 4♥ bid show hearts, while an a tempo 4♥ bid is p/c ?

[jeremy69]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this it is now a regulation, as Bluejak says, and it sounds as if OP's captain was derelict in not letting the team know of this before the start of the event especially as it was announced to all captains in the briefing before the start of the event!

[Ant590]

Can I just confirm, as I'm being particularly dense this afternoon.

Should the screen-mate, or the defender on the other side of the screen call the director for hesitations?

[helene_t]

Ant590, on Jul 22 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

Should the screen-mate, or the defender on the other side of the screen call the director for hesitations?

The one at the other side of the screen. S/he is the one who can judge whether the BIT is noticeable across the screen.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jul 22 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

How would the hesitation damage the defenders? Does a slow 4♥ bid show hearts, while an a tempo 4♥ bid is p/c ?

Well that's a good point but sort of moot, since the question is whether the director can consider making a ruling at all. And by regulation he can't. Which, when you are fortunate enough to have players who are honest and admit there was a break in tempo, is stupid.

[bid_em_up]

helene_t, on Jul 22 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

Ant590, on Jul 22 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

Should the screen-mate, or the defender on the other side of the screen call the director for hesitations?

The one at the other side of the screen. S/he is the one who can judge whether the BIT is noticeable across the screen.

Huh?

How would the person on the other side of the screen know if it was his partner who caused the BIT or if it was the opponent who did?

Or do they just call the director and say "hey, there was a BIT here, you figure out who caused it"?

[bluejak]

C'mon, be serious. If you do not think there may be an infraction, you do not call the TD. If there is a BIT the other side of the screen, and you think an infraction may have resulted, you call the TD and say just that. There is no need for anything silly at all.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

Maybe so.

But as far as the hesitation was concerned my understanding is that you will not get a UI ruling if the hesitation is reported from the wrong side of the screen. Another barking regulation, but c'est la vie.

I don't think it's a completely barking regulation.

I've played quite a lot of boards with screens in the last year, and there have been a few times where the player(s) on one side of the screen has simply not noticed a hesitation on the other that was 'blatant' according to their partner.

Of course it's a bit odd when both halves of a partnership agree that there was a BIT because now you have proof that it was transmitted through the screen, but as long as you know the regulation I don't see what harm it does, and it does some good.

[FrancesHinden]

bid_em_up, on Jul 22 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 22 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

Ant590, on Jul 22 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

Should the screen-mate, or the defender on the other side of the screen call the director for hesitations?

The one at the other side of the screen. S/he is the one who can judge whether the BIT is noticeable across the screen.

Huh?

How would the person on the other side of the screen know if it was his partner who caused the BIT or if it was the opponent who did?

Or do they just call the director and say "hey, there was a BIT here, you figure out who caused it"?

That's the point of playing with screens, it's hard to tell if there was a hesitation or not, and even if there was one you don't know who caused it.

However there are plenty of auctions where it's obvious who must have been doing the thinking (although the one that started this post isn't one of them).