[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

 P   P  1♥  2♦
2♥ 4♦ P[1] P
4♥  P   P    P

Result
4♥ =
NS -620

---

East-West play 5-card majors. This is a little different from most problems shown here since it involves unagreed facts.

At [1] there was an alleged BIT. North said he kept the Stop card out after the call, then put it away, and then East thought for some considerable time before passing. East said that the Stop card was not out for the full ten seconds, so after it was put away he counted seconds because he never had any intention of doing anything but pass. West and North vaguely supported their partners.

On further enquiry, North said he kept the Stop card out for five to seven seconds and no-one disagreed. The TD commented that East did not have anything to think about once you look at his hand.

So, any views?

[TylerE]

I disagree that E has nothing to think about. After all, game is on a hook opp. AQx xxx xxx xxxx, and could make opp as little as ATxx xxx xxx xxx.

I don't think W has any real alternative to 4♥. The initial 2♥ was rather conservative, and he's looking at a dead max with a small doubleton in the opponents suit.

While I'm not sure about the legal situation, my gut instinct on this is that there was no real BIT. I would perhaps have more sympathy if N/S had reserved rights after pass and before 4♥.

[bluejak]

It is not the policy in England - nor in most of the world I believe - to reserve rights before a bid which might have been affected by a BIT, and there has been much argument over the policy in various forums. But since it is not the policy here, E/W cannot really be blamed for not doing it. To be honest, I am not really sure when they called the TD.

In the ACBL, where it is the official policy to get the TD as soon as there is a BIT, it has proved so impractical that it is practically never done.

But certainly it would have been better in this specific case. However, as pointed out many times, calling the TD about twenty times per session per table for about two UI rulings per session does cause an awful lot of trouble.

[gnasher]

Regarding the possible actions of East and West:
- I would at least consider 4♥ with East's hand.
- It wouldn't occur to me to bid 4♥ on the West hand, though I might double.

I'd be fairly suspicious of the claim that East was merely topping up the pause to the full 10 seconds. Very few players do that if the stop card has been out for several seconds.

As director, I'd ask all the players whether North had made any stop warnings earlier in the match, and if so whether East had paused for the full 10 seconds on the previous occasion(s). If I established that he didn't do this consistently, I'd rule that there was UI. If I established that he didn't, or if I couldn't find any convincing evidence either way, I'd rule that there wasn't any UI.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-December-31, 10:26

[jdonn]

Correct me on the laws in the UK, but isn't there UI by legal definition, since it's up to the player with the stop card to determine the amount of time it is left out? And that would make this case easy (if west thought he had a 2♥ bid before, nothing has changed that).

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Dec 31 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

(if west thought he had a 2♥ bid before, nothing has changed that).

That statement should be, IMHO, the determining factor. Whether it is the initial action which would have been taken by others is not relevent. It is what this West chose. If having a hard time deciding whether there was a BIT --whether UI exists -- "nothing has changed" should govern.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Dec 31 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

I'd be fairly suspicious of the claim that East was merely topping up the pause to the full 10 seconds. Very few players do that if the stop card has been out for several seconds.

As director, I'd ask all the players whether North had made any stop warnings earlier in the match, and if so whether East had paused for the full 10 seconds on the previous occasion(s). If I established that he didn't do this consistently, I'd rule that there was UI.

I agree with this. Time permitting, the TD should try to observe this particular East during the next few hands he plays (even in the next match, he will probably have a RHO who does not hold out the 'Stop' card for the full ten seconds) to establish whether he really does "top up" pauses for stop warnings as a matter of course.

The TD should ask West why he bid 4♥. The answer will be interesting.

When facts are disputed, the TD must determine the facts using balance of probabilities". West's inconsistent 4♥ bid is a fairly strong indication that West had "noticed" a pause (whether East had actually been considering bidding or not) and in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, I'd be inclined to rule that there was one.

[paulg]

jdonn, on Dec 31 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

Correct me on the laws in the UK, but isn't there UI by legal definition, since it's up to the player with the stop card to determine the amount of time it is left out? And that would make this case easy (if west thought he had a 2♥ bid before, nothing has changed that).

The relevant EBU Regulations:

7 B 4
Before making a jump bid (ie a bid at a higher level than the minimum in that denomination) a player should place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed.

7 B 5
The Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds, to give the next player time to reflect. It should not be removed prematurely.

7 B 6
After a jump bid, the next player MUST pause for about ten seconds before calling. It is an offence either not to pause or to show indifference when pausing. If the Stop card has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly.


So the player with the Stop card does not control the tempo, since the next player must pause for 10 seconds however long the Stop card is out.

I thought that the ACBL regulations appear essentially the same (ACBL Bidding Box regulations: If a player forgets to replace the stop card there is no penalty. It is each player's responsibility to maintain appropriate tempo including after a skip bid.).

[bluejak]

The difference between ACBL regulations and EBU regulations is that in England/Wales the player who makes the skip bid is required to put the Stop card out, is required to keep it out for about ten seconds, and therefore is required to control the tempo.

The similarity between the two regulations is that if the player who makes the skip bid fails to do what he is required to do, the next player is still required to pause ten seconds.

[jdonn]

I think that regulation makes it impossible to make consistently accurate rulings, because you can have this argument every time (I paused 10 seconds total because he didn't leave the stop card out long enough, yes I did then you paused extra, back and forth...) Nonetheless, we are fortunate in this case that north admitted he didn't leave the stop card out long enough. On that basis it seems to me East did what he is legally required to do, so I rule no UI and thus no adjustment.

[mamos]

Jeffrey wrote

The TD should ask West why he bid 4♥. The answer will be interesting.

Always, always in possible UI situations we should ask the player in "alleged" receipt of UI, to explain their possibly disputed actions. This will help the TD to assess the level of the players involved and is essential in understanding system style and so on. On the surface West's actions do look a little odd. Opposite a third in hand 1♥ opening he chose a pretty conservative 2♥ response. What is the style in third? Now over 4♦ he chooses 4♥.
It appears that West has had a major rethink about his hand during the auction. I'd like to hear his explanation of this.

One problem with this is that we have no idea of the standard of the players involved. Surely double shows this sort of hand, extra values but not extra heart support.
If there was UI what does it suggest? (My first thought is that it does NOT suggest 4♥ but I'd have liked West to tell me this) Is Pass a Logical Alternative? This may depend on the level of the players.

So lots of questions. Not sure the TD has asked the right ones

Mike

[bluejak]

Sadly, most of the problems I have - including all three so far - were from other TDs. So I cannot add anything much.

[peachy]

TylerE, on Dec 31 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

I disagree that E has nothing to think about. After all, game is on a hook opp. AQx xxx xxx xxxx, and could make opp as little as ATxx xxx xxx xxx.

I don't think W has any real alternative to 4♥. The initial 2♥ was rather conservative, and he's looking at a dead max with a small doubleton in the opponents suit.

While I'm not sure about the legal situation, my gut instinct on this is that there was no real BIT. I would perhaps have more sympathy if N/S had reserved rights after pass and before 4♥.

The same small doubleton in the opp's suit was there when he bid 2H. If he judged it a 2H bid then, there is no new (authorised) information to change things in any way. Despite the disagreement whether there was BIT or not, I would tend to think there was BIT and that the BIT'er was thinking of other calls than Pass (I would certainly STRONGLY consider bidding 4H with singleton in their suit but hopefully would do my thinking without BIT...). Since Pass is a LA, considering this player judged the hand only worth 2H in the first place, I would adjust to 4D making however many tricks that makes.

[Mbodell]

peachy, on Dec 31 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

TylerE, on Dec 31 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

I disagree that E has nothing to think about. After all, game is on a hook opp. AQx xxx xxx xxxx, and could make opp as little as ATxx xxx xxx xxx.

I don't think W has any real alternative to 4♥. The initial 2♥ was rather conservative, and he's looking at a dead max with a small doubleton in the opponents suit.

The same small doubleton in the opp's suit was there when he bid 2H. If he judged it a 2H bid then, there is no new (authorised) information to change things in any way.

That's a bit of an overbid, no?

The opponents partner had bid 4♦ since then. This suggest that both opponents are long in diamonds, and that likely both opponents have diamond honors. This suggests partner is likely to be short in diamonds and that partner's values are likely to be outside diamonds. Furthermore the 4♦ bid is preemptive by a passed hand and figures to mean that the passed hand has little more than diamond length. 4♦= is likely to be a bad score, and 4♦-1 may well be bad as well. That seems to make pass, possibly, not an LA. So while you only bid 2♥ over 2♦ and may well have been happy to play 2♥ or 3♥ since you bid 2♥ those options have been taken away from you and you do have more AI about the hand.

[MFA]

I support the view that TD should try to investigate, but if he doesn't learn anything interesting, the default ruling would be no UI.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Dec 31 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

I'd be fairly suspicious of the claim that East was merely topping up the pause to the full 10 seconds.  Very few players do that if the stop card has been out for several seconds. As director, I'd ask all the players whether North had made any stop warnings earlier in the match, and if so whether East had paused for the full 10 seconds on the previous occasion(s).  If I established that he didn't do this consistently, I'd rule that there was UI.

jallerton, on Dec 31 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

I agree with this.  Time permitting, the TD should try to observe this particular East during the next few hands he plays (even in the next match, he will probably have a RHO who does not hold out the 'Stop' card for the full ten seconds) to establish whether he really does "top up" pauses for stop warnings as a matter of course. The TD should ask West why he bid 4♥.  The answer will be interesting. When facts are disputed, the TD must determine the facts using balance of probabilities".  West's inconsistent 4♥ bid is a fairly strong indication that West had "noticed" a pause (whether East had actually been considering bidding or not) and in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, I'd be inclined to rule that there was one.

I agree with all that. I sympathise with West "topping up" to ten seconds. But if so, I feel that he should say so immediately afterwards; and he should he should do this consistently. Otherwise, the inference is that East had more to think about. That is unauthorised information to West. West has a heavy 2♥ raise but he has already made that judgement. His explanation for bidding 4♥ would be interesting.

If each table were supplied with an "egg-timer" containing about 10 seconds worth of sand, fewer such problems would arise.

[Ant590]

I quite like the egg-timer idea, but can see the table atmosphere clouding (any many more director calls) if a player thought beyond the sand.

[FrancesHinden]

This seems to be a "simple" case in theory, just knowing what the actual ruling should be is harder!

If East always waits for 10 seconds after a STOP, however long it is held out for (or longer, if it is held out longer) then there is no UI, no adjustment. The trouble, of course, is that I know very few players who actually do this (one is my husband and the other is I).

If East had definitely hesitated, then the 4H bid is not allowed.

In the absence of the assorted bids of additional information that we'd like (does East always wait up to 10 seconds etc) I would tend to rule that there was a hesitation, because
(i) East certainly has something to think about - 4H is definitely a possible call here
(ii) West's actions on the hand are strange.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jan 1 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

I agree with all that. I sympathise with West "topping up" to ten seconds. But if so, I feel that he should say so immediately afterwards;

This is the same as admitting he has nothing to think about, which defeats the entire purpose of using the stop card to begin with. Sorry but it's an awful idea.

[bluejak]

I explained to the TD why I thought East had something to think about with his shape, though probably it would not take more than the ten seconds to which he was entitled.

Anyway, the TD finally decided there was no BIT so no adjustment was necessary.