[cphastrup]

Not really a big issue, but here goes:

Today I played 4-board IMP pairs tourney. On this board I was south.

E/W vulnerable

W.......N.......E..........S
--------------------------
..........P.......P..........3♣
P*......P.......X**
All pass

* After ca. 1 minute of hesitation
** After considerable hesitation (ca. 30 seconds)

Result: NS -800

When dummy tabled his hand I called the director, and discovered that the director was already at the table... sitting west

I explained the case: West had hesitated for some time and partner doubled after having passed in 2nd hand.

West said: 5 minutes [left of the round]
And a little later: All play faster pls

We finished the hand. After the hand I asked West, the TD, why he had hesitated.
I didn't get any replies whatsoever concerning the hesitation. This makes me wonder:

1) Are playing TD's capable of making a ruling against themselves? Any experiences?

2) What hand could west have in order to justify the hesitation?

3) What would you consider being a minimum hand for East's double?

I'm in no way "pissed" or anything - just curious And I'll appreciate any comments.

Thanks,
Claus

[inquiry]

1) Are playing TD's capable of making a ruling against themselves? Any experiences?

A good, ethical director is capable of making a ruling against themselves. It is of course, by far and away preferable not to have a playing director. Sometimes in the last round, if no subs are available, a director will jump in. But in general if there is a playing director, it should be listed in the tournment conditions.

2) What hand could west have in order to justify the hesitation?

Well, you sprung a skip bid on them. Allow them a few seconds to gather their thoughts. A one minute hesitation might also be due to a distracted player (looking at the last hand, viewing some other website, talking on the phone to a client).

But since you got doubled by a passed hand, I would suspect east had a few clubs. Not too many, else pass is automatic, say two club tricks with three or four card suit top. With a four card suit and two club stoppers he might have been thinking 3NT. Since no double, and what must be a fair hand, you can also eliminate four card supprot for both majors. So maybe 4-2-4-3 or 2-4-3-4 districution and aobut 15 points

3) What would you consider being a minimum hand for East's double?

East is a passed hand, so max will be like 11 or 12. A reasonable minimum, iwth the right shape (say 4-4-4-1) would be about a nice 8 with 10's and 9's.

But, EAST has an obligation to lean over backwards given the long hesitiation. The balance now has to be CLEAR. So I would say the long hesitation has raised the "allowable" minumum up to an excellent 10 or 11 hcp and perfect distribution. This is the problem with the hesitation, EAST is ethically obligated to only make the CLEAR bid. Border line ones are no longer allowed.

To see if there was a problem, you have to look at EAST balancing double hand, not West's hesistation hand.

Ben

[luis]

The rules are very clear if there's Unauthorized Information (UI) the player that has the UI cannot take a winning action if he has an unsuccesful logical alternative.
In this hand we need to determine
1) If East has UI
2) If pass was a logical alternative

#2 is easy, being a passed hand after pd passed over 3♣ I think no matter what east has pass is a logical alternative. Only exception will be if East just forgot to open his hand due to distraction, so if he has 14+HCP nothing happens.

#1 as Ben commented is hard to determine playing online but in the context of what happened I think that the answer is that yes, east did have UI from west's hesitation

I'd rule 3♣ down 4 NS -200 removing the double.

Luis

[Trpltrbl]

I don't agree with playing director(s).
I don't play in tournaments with playing director and/ or no adjustment, mostly because director is playing and doesn't have time to do what he is supposed to do.
They just set up tourney so they can play in it, at the time they want and the amount of hands they want etc.
Why else play in your own tourney ?
And I am not taking about director subbing in last round.

Mike

[xx1943]

Trpltrbl, on Jul 6 2004, 01:57 PM, said:

I don't agree with playing director(s).
I don't play in tournaments with playing director and/ or no adjustment, mostly because director is playing and doesn't have time to do what he is supposed to do.
They just set up tourney so they can play in it, at the time they want and the amount of hands they want etc.
Why else play in your own tourney ?
And I am not taking about director subbing in last round.

Mike

Hi Mike

100% agree with you and going a step further. Software should not permit playing TD aside from subbing in last round when no subs on the list are available or just a few cards of the last board have to be played.

It's terrible to see playing TD.

Al

[mink]

A playing director should be possible in a tourney with 3 or 5 tables, when he has organized the event for his friends.

Karl

[Chamaco]

cphastrup, on Jul 6 2004, 05:26 PM, said:

Not really a big issue, but here goes:

Today I played 4-board IMP pairs tourney. On this board I was south.

E/W vulnerable

W.......N.......E..........S
--------------------------
..........P.......P..........3♣
P*......P.......X**
All pass

* After ca. 1 minute of hesitation
** After considerable hesitation (ca. 30 seconds)

A director who plays is likely to show "hesitations".
He may be running other errands related to the tourney management during the play, and I think we should be more tolerant about that, shouldn't we ?

[cphastrup]

Chamaco, on Jul 6 2004, 07:10 PM, said:

A director who plays is likely to show "hesitations".
He may be running other errands related to the tourney management during the play, and I think we should be more tolerant about that, shouldn't we ?

Yes, but isn't that an argument against playing TD's?
If he isn't able to answer - even give a single reply - when I have a question for the TD, then he maybe shouldn't be playing? (Or maybe he shouldn't be a TD at all )

He could easily have said:
"Sorry, I was just away."
"Sorry, my connection is lousy."
or
"Sorry, my cat almost drowned in the aquarium...again."

In which case East's double would just have been a result of aggressive balancing, instead of a double that maybe was caused by UI.

But I'll never know why he hesitated, since he didn't answer any of my questions...

[Willem]

inquiry, on Jul 6 2004, 07:42 PM, said:

3) What would you consider being a minimum hand for East's double?

East is a passed hand, so max will be like 11 or 12. A reasonable minimum, iwth the right shape (say 4-4-4-1) would be about a nice 8 with 10's and 9's.

But, EAST has an obligation to lean over backwards given the long hesitiation. The balance now has to be CLEAR. So I would say the long hesitation has raised the "allowable" minumum up to an excellent 10 or 11 hcp and perfect distribution. This is the problem with the hesitation, EAST is ethically obligated to only make the CLEAR bid. Border line ones are no longer allowed.

To see if there was a problem,  you have to look at EAST balancing double hand, not West's hesistation hand.

Ben

I totally disagree with Ben's post. East has the obligation to bid whatever (s)he would have bid without the hesitation. Often I hear people say to their partner: "I would have made a bid, but I can't anymore because you hesitated". That's false. In fact, if you raise your minimum for a call after your partner hesitated, THEN you could be using UI.

In this particular case however, i won't be surprised if a pass by East is a logical alternative. But I should see the East-hand to decide. Remember, North passed and South openend a preempt. It won't take an Einstein East to figure out partner has points, hesitation or not.

[uday]

it is true that it does not take Einstein to figure out that fourth hand has values, but it it not true that East has the obligation to bid as he would have had there been no hesitation.

At least here, in the US, East is prevented (by bridge law) from choosing (from a list of alternatives) an action that is suggested over others by the unauthorized information transmitted by the hesitation.

So, for instance , in the sample auction where the hesitation suggests that fourth hand has values, balancer cannot select a superlight TO double when pass would also be a logical alternative.

But - I'm a programmer, not an expert in the laws.

[inquiry]

Willem, on Jul 6 2004, 09:45 PM, said:

I totally disagree with Ben's post. East has the obligation to bid whatever (s)he would have bid without the hesitation. Often I hear people say to their partner: "I would have made a bid, but I can't anymore because you hesitated". That's false. In fact, if you raise your minimum for a call after your partner hesitated, THEN you could be using UI.

I wonder how many appeals committee you have served on or been before? How many times have you been at a table with an accusation of UI?

Anyway, my experience is that the committess will not allow a favourable choice out of logical alternatives that could be based on that UI. Here is reopening with a double is not a clear favorite, you are going to get an adjustment. As luis said, pass has to be at least reasonable so he was going to rule against the doubler unless he passed a 14pt hand. I wouldn't go that far, but any minimum reopening simply can not be taken after a clear unambigious hesitation. Active ethics and experience will keep me from bidding there (if parnter red light was on, however, I would feel no such obligation on line)....

If you want chapter and verse, for the ACBL, look at law 16...

16. Extraneous Information from Partner
After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
1. When Such Information Is Given
When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately 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).
2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen
When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage.

Here, pass is always a logical alterative as Luis said. I would make an exception for a very good (and distributional) passed hand despite the hesitation. But the law is clear.

Ben

[xx1943]

mink, on Jul 6 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

A playing director should be possible in a tourney with 3 or 5 tables, when he has organized the event for his friends.

Karl

Hi Karl

agree 100%, but how can software decern when to allow 2 tables or 1 more or 1 more ...............

Al

[jdulmage]

I am a director for my local club and a TD for BBO. Hestitation at a local club is thrown in to factor during an auction, however for online play, you simply can't factor it in to your ruling.

Hestiations could be anything, me typing this as we speak and it's my turn to bid, or in the bathroom, or getting a drink or perhaps bad connection.

As for the other questions, yes, directors can give themselves a ruling, I've done it before. However, nothing was to be ruled, the NS -800 would stand if I was directing, especially with the skip bid, unless the hand that doubled had nothing.

[Frosty]

I'm with Al and Karl - Playing TD's should happen 1) in small social games, or 2) to sub at the end when no subs available. Sorry to my friends and co-TD's who play in their own tournaments, but a TD simply cannot do justice to the responsibilities when participating as a player. When the TD plays, the players are often short changed because the TD isn't readily available to call.

Frosty

[Cascade]

luis, on Jul 7 2004, 05:53 AM, said:

The rules are very clear if there's Unauthorized Information (UI) the player that has the UI cannot take a winning action if he has an unsuccesful logical alternative.

It is not that the action is winning that is illegal it needs to be "demonstably suggested" by the UI.

Of course no one complains when he takes a losing action. The point is that winning is not in itself enough to make the action illegal.

[Cascade]

Willem, on Jul 7 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

I totally disagree with Ben's post. East has the obligation to bid whatever (s)he would have bid without the hesitation.

"I was always going to bid this" is not a defense in the presence of UI.

You are not allowed to choose a logical alternative that was demonstably suggested by the UI.

You must lean over backwards to not take advantage of the information that you are not entitled to have.