[petterb]

IMP match.

1C - 4S - pass - pass
Dbl - pass - pass - pass

A proper skip bid warning was given before the 4S bid.

The following pass took max 10 seconds according to the opening bid side, at least 1 minute according to their opponents.

Opener's double was made on a minimum opening hand.

How should a TD rule here?

[kenrexford]

There is no wiggle room for interpretation between 10 seconds and 1 minute. So, two out of four people are clearly not telling the truth. So, I'd subject the table to lie detector tests and banish the liars from the ACBL for one year.

[blackshoe]

That's helpful, Ken.

You have to make a judgment when there's no clear answer to whether there was a BIT. You'd have to be at the table, because it's really the TD's estimate of who he believes, based on more than just what they say - body language is very important.

Just off the top of my head, 1 minute is a very long time. I don't believe it was that long (which doesn't mean their wasn't a BIT).

[aguahombre]

In determining whether there was a break in tempo, when it is disputed:

Do you ever use the degree of absurdity of the BIT'ers partner's bid to break the tie and say, "there must have been some UI, or he would not have done that."?

Or is that two carts, with the horse in the middle?

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Mar 22 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

In determining whether there was a break in tempo, when it is disputed:

Do you ever use the degree of absurdity of the BIT'ers partner's bid to break the tie and say, "there must have been some UI, or he would not have done that."?

Or is that two carts, with the horse in the middle?

That sort of reasoning is completely illogical.

Because a BIT might lead to a dodgy call in know way means that a dodgy call implies a BIT.

A dodgy call could just be bad bridge.

[petterb]

Here's the full hand:

Scoring: IMP

---

4S-X went 1 down after non-optimal defense.

TD ruled that table result should stand since he could not establish that a break in tempo had occurred.

My thinking is that if one side says there was a 1 minute pause before the pass then it's very likely that the pause was longer than 10 seconds.

I'm not a TD, but I would've changed the result to 4S undoubled down 1.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Mar 21 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Mar 22 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

In determining whether there was a break in tempo, when it is disputed:

Do you ever use the degree of absurdity of the BIT'ers partner's bid to break the tie and say, "there must have been some UI, or he would not have done that."?

Or is that two carts, with the horse in the middle?

That sort of reasoning is completely illogical.

Because a BIT might lead to a dodgy call in know way means that a dodgy call implies a BIT.

A dodgy call could just be bad bridge.

your logic is true. The situation i asked about was when there has been a director call alleging a BIT, and The TD has to determine whether one occurred, since it is in dispute. I asked if "to break a tie", directors use the call itself to determine whether the BIT is more likely to have occurred.

I know this happens, but don't whether it should be used. (oops) answered by Blue while I was posting.

[bluejak]

Please will OPs put where this is, which jurisdiction, when posting. It often affects the ruling. In this case, the difference in Skip Bid regulations may be relevant between, for example, the EBU and the ACBL.

If the TD cannot determine there was a BIT then he is right to rule result stands.

I am unconvinced by the argument:

Quote

They said there was a BIT of one minute: one minute is a long time, much longer than ten seconds: therefore there must have been a BIT.

Hogwash. It probably means E/W feel there was a BIT, so they exaggerate it - and then exaggerate it again for effect.

A partner of mine looked to me as though she was about to think, so I counted seconds. She took an amazing forty seconds - that seemed like forever. The opponents called the TD, and started in a loud barracking voice complaining about the six minute pause.

But TDs have to decide whether there was a BIT.

Quote

Do you ever use the degree of absurdity of the BIT'ers partner's bid to break the tie and say, "there must have been some UI, or he would not have done that."?

No.

But it is not unheard of for a TD or AC to be swayed by the contents of the hand [no, they do not look until the hand is finished] when they really cannot decide otherwise.

[petterb]

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

Please will OPs put where this is, which jurisdiction, when posting.  It often affects the ruling.  In this case, the difference in Skip Bid regulations may be relevant between, for example, the EBU and the ACBL.

Sweden.

[blackshoe]

What does the Swedish skip bid regulation say?

[petterb]

blackshoe, on Mar 21 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

What does the Swedish skip bid regulation say?

A skip bid warning should be given before a jump bid and next player should wait 10 seconds before bidding.

I can't say if this is different compared to other jurisdictions.

[blackshoe]

If that's what it says, it's different, yes. The EBU reg, if I'm not mistaken, is that the player making the skip bid "controls" the tempo of the next player by, using bidding boxes (I don't know if other procedures are in effect for spoken bidding), keeping the stop card out for approximately 10 seconds. Next player should call when the stop card is removed. In the ACBL, the warning is made or stop card put out, and in the latter case, the card is immediately removed. It's up to the next player to (while he's making sure he doesn't give away that he has nothing to think about — or while he's thinking if he does have something to think about) control his own tempo. The Swedish reg seems closer to the ACBL one.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Mar 22 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

If that's what it says, it's different, yes. The EBU reg, if I'm not mistaken, is that the player making the skip bid "controls" the tempo of the next player by, using bidding boxes (I don't know if other procedures are in effect for spoken bidding), keeping the stop card out for approximately 10 seconds. Next player should call when the stop card is removed. In the ACBL, the warning is made or stop card put out, and in the latter case, the card is immediately removed. It's up to the next player to (while he's making sure he doesn't give away that he has nothing to think about — or while he's thinking if he does have something to think about) control his own tempo. The Swedish reg seems closer to the ACBL one.

The EBU (EBL) type reg is indeed the standard in Norway, and I would be extremely surprised if it is different in Sweden - we are generally very coordinated.

(When using spoken bidding we shall say "stop" and eventually "continue" or words to these effects)

[bluejak]

My point is that if the skip bid warning is like the English one then I am going to ask:

• How long was the Stop card left out?
  
• Was there a pause between the Stop card being replaced and the call being made?
  
• If so, how long a pause?

These questions are pointless if the skip bid warning is like the North American one.

[greenender]

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

Quote

Do you ever use the degree of absurdity of the BIT'ers partner's bid to break the tie and say, "there must have been some UI, or he would not have done that."?

No.

But it is not unheard of for a TD or AC to be swayed by the contents of the hand [no, they do not look until the hand is finished] when they really cannot decide otherwise.

That would be the hand of the person who allegedly broke tempo, to allow the TDs to assess whether it is likely that they had anything significant to think about; rather than the hand of the player who acted opposite the alleged BIT.

[bluejak]

Certainly.

[petterb]

pran, on Mar 22 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

The EBU (EBL) type reg is indeed the standard in Norway, and I would be extremely surprised if it is different in Sweden - we are generally very coordinated.

The Swedish and Norwegian regulations are not the same. The Swedish regulations are as I wrote earlier in the thread.

It is the player to bid that controls the length of the pause, not the player who gave the skip bid warning. The player to bid is expected to wait approximately 10 seconds.

Here's a link (text in Swedish):
http://www.svenskbridge.se/e107_plugins/co...ontent.1910#M53

[pran]

petterb, on Mar 22 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

pran, on Mar 22 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

The EBU (EBL) type reg is indeed the standard in Norway, and I would be extremely surprised if it is different in Sweden - we are generally very coordinated.

The Swedish and Norwegian regulations are not the same. The Swedish regulations are as I wrote earlier in the thread.

It is the player to bid that controls the length of the pause, not the player who gave the skip bid warning. The player to bid is expected to wait approximately 10 seconds.

Here's a link (text in Swedish):
http://www.svenskbridge.se/e107_plugins/co...ontent.1910#M53

Oh dear, I am surprised.

That seems to me as if the Swedes indeed follow the ACBL style.