[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

.2♠...P...4♠..P(H)
..P....5♦...P...P
..P

---

NS reserved their rights at the end of the auction because of the hesitation. West admitted she had been thinking.
Result: 5♦(E)=, NS -600

North called the TD at the end of play. East contended that any pause was no more than that required by the "stop" regulations, and that the STOP card had been removed as soon as the bid was made. NS did not dispute this. (The TD happens to know that this NS have scant regard for the correct "stop" procedure.)

When asked why he bid as he did, East said that as soon as 2♠ was opened he decided that he was going to pass initially, but would not sell out to 4♠.

How would you rule? If you decide there was no hesitation, say what you think of East's bidding if there had been a hesitation.

[campboy]

I imagine I would rule "no hesitation".

If there was a hesitation, I would think 5♦ is suggested over pass, which is an LA.

[bluejak]

No hesitation. Tell South to behave.

[jeremy69]

If West did as said and thoguht for the appropriate amount of time that the stop procedure made appropriate then there is no problem and I would also rule no hesitation. I would explain to South, using my most insouciant voice, why we had a stop procedure and then
If you believe that South
a. makes a habit of removing the card prematurely
b. has scant regard for the process and
c. does this to show his disregard
then stick him with

i. a PP or
ii. a warning if you are feeling more charitable

[Cascade]

I rule no hesitation.

In any case 5♦ has a lot going for it.

What a slow PASS would suggest may well depend on the east-west methods e.g. would double have been takeout or penalty.

I did a simulation and opposite a random hand 5♦ was a winner around 80% of the time - either as a successful sacrifice against 4♠ or 5♦ was making. This suggests to me that 5♦ is a very reasonable action.

[jdonn]

Based on what we are told I rule there was a hesitation. The combination of N/S believing there was one at the time it was made (they bothered to reserve their rights after all), west having a hand on which it's very plausible (I didn't say a good bid) to consider doubling 4♠, and west admitting that he had been thinking, those all combine to make it likely enough to me that east perceived west had a problem.

As for what I think of east's bidding if there had been a hesitation, who the heck knows since the first pass was so weird? I might rule there is no LA (to acting, and I don't think a hesitation suggests 5♦ over X) at this vul but it's hard for me to put myself in that position.

[VixTD]

West was the youngest player at the congress by several yards, and was the only player I would have any sympathy with for not understanding and following the "stop" regulations. I think when she admitted to having taken time before passing over 4♠ she wasn't really mindful of the requirement to wait for 10 seconds.

If East thought the pause was no longer than this, why did he say nothing when NS reserved their rights? He's disputing the fact that there was a hesitation, and should have called the director then.

I ruled that there was no evidence of a break in tempo, so I allowed the score to stand. I read everybody the relevant section of the Orange Book.

North (who plays at my club) came up to me later and we had the following conversation:

North: "You know this "stop" business..."
Me: "Yes?"
North: "No one actually follows the rules."
Me: "I do."
North: "Yes, all right, you do, but no one else does. Our opponents at that table didn't pause after every stop bid."
Me: "You see what problems you cause the players and directors when you don't?"

I don't know if that was true, maybe East got away with it here, I tried to watch their table in later rounds from a distance, but didn't manage to observe their actions after a jump bid. I don't like players who don't observe the proprieties accusing their opponents.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Apr 19 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

Based on what we are told I rule there was a hesitation. The combination of N/S believing there was one at the time it was made (they bothered to reserve their rights after all), west having a hand on which it's very plausible (I didn't say a good bid) to consider doubling 4♠, and west admitting that he had been thinking, those all combine to make it likely enough to me that east perceived west had a problem.

EW's hands happened to match what a slow pass and a questionable 5♦ call might look like. Therefore: West made a slow pass and East took advantage of it. Right?

The question to West: "Did you think about your bid?" is a red herring that I have heard many directors use. I like to respond, "of course I did, that's why the laws allow me 10 seconds to do so".

NS reserving their rights is essentially saying, "I don't know if you guessed right" but in case you did, I'm going to call the cops afterward.

I do believe the phrase "I didn't want to bid over 2♠ but wasn't going to sell out to 4♠" is incredibly self-serving, and frankly might just want me to roll this back to 4♠ -2.

I also agree East has an easy call over 2♠.

By the way, is the vulnerability correct in the OP? It said NS were -600 but it said only NS were vul.

[VixTD]

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I do believe the phrase "I didn't want to bid over 2♠ but wasn't going to sell out to 4♠" is incredibly self-serving, and frankly might just want me to roll this back to 4♠ -2.

But it might just be the truth as well, and all East has to say on the matter. I don't think players should be put off from making an honest statement just because it's self-serving. This is certainly no reason in itself to adjust the score.

Quote

By the way, is the vulnerability correct in the OP? It said NS were -600 but it said only NS were vul.

No, it's supposed to say "EW vul". Now corrected, thank you.

[aguahombre]

FWIW, I think West's hand is one of the milions of hands which conform to an in-tempo pass by an experienced player. It, itself, is not evidence to suggest that there was a BIT other than what was required.

Of course, that is only relevant if West's actual holding can be used to determine if a BIT was likely to have occurred when disputed.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on Apr 20 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

West was the youngest player at the congress by several yards, and was the only player I would have any sympathy with for not understanding and following the "stop" regulations. I think when she admitted to having taken time before passing over 4♠ she wasn't really mindful of the requirement to wait for 10 seconds.

If East thought the pause was no longer than this, why did he say nothing when NS reserved their rights? He's disputing the fact that there was a hesitation, and should have called the director then.

I ruled that there was no evidence of a break in tempo, so I allowed the score to stand. I read everybody the relevant section of the Orange Book.

I am confused. Your first two paragraphs suggest that you found that West had not called within her normal tempo.

[jdonn]

Yes both Vix and Phil made a post that seems to me to have argued for one thing then concluded another.

[mycroft]

Arguably, the only thing here that gets me is that East did not immediately dispute the hesitation (and call the TD) that N/S were reserving their rights on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what's supposed to happen in EBU in these situations? Why wait to dispute it until after the hand, especially if you're going to use the "was never selling out to 4S" defence?

As for "nobody follows the rules" - well as far as I'm concerned, that's yet more reason to give those that do the benefit of the doubt. However, I've been known to call about 3D - (8 seconds)P, and when the TD says "well, he's entitled to 10 seconds", say "yes, but this is the third preempt I've made this match and the rest of the calls were immediate." What it gets me, I don't know, but it does get the point across.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

Yes both Vix and Phil made a post that seems to me to have argued for one thing then concluded another.

Nah, my spite is just distributed among all players.

If I wasn't clear, I'd vote no adjustment.

[bluejak]

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

NS reserving their rights is essentially saying, "I don't know if you guessed right" but in case you did, I'm going to call the cops afterward.

No, it doesn't, it essentially says "I believe there was a BIT, do you agree?"

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

I do believe the phrase "I didn't want to bid over 2♠ but wasn't going to sell out to 4♠" is incredibly self-serving, and frankly might just want me to roll this back to 4♠ -2.

Just as a woman is pregnant or not, a statement is either self-serving or not. "Incredibly" self-serving is merely an attempt to persuade by rhetoric. Of course it is self-serving: when you ask a player why he did something it is incredibly rare that the answer is not self-serving. As has been pointed out many times, self-serving statements should never be ignored, but the weight ascribed to them may be less because they are self-serving.

[Ant590]

bluejak, on Apr 21 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

Just as a woman is pregnant or not, a statement is either self-serving or not.

Nah, there are levels of self-serving:

(1) Working for a charity is self-serving to a certain extent as you feel good about the help you're doing
(2) Stealing money from a charity is self-serving also, but I doubt anyone would regard it the same as (1)


The only valid argument is that there is no universal metric.

[bluejak]

I said a statement is either self-serving or not. I did not refer to self-serving actions.

[helene_t]

I think there are some self-serving statements that are more self-serving than others.

Anyway, result stands. There probably was no hesitation and besides East's explanation is plausible. I would say that pass followed by 5♦ shows a much weaker hand but East appears to have a different opinion. Maybe he is a bean-counter and thinks he can't overcall with ten points.

Yeah East technically agreed with the BIT by failing to call the TD when NS reserved their rights but how many players know this?

[VixTD]

jallerton, on Apr 20 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

VixTD, on Apr 20 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

West was the youngest player at the congress by several yards, and was the only player I would have any sympathy with for not understanding and following the "stop" regulations. I think when she admitted to having taken time before passing over 4♠ she wasn't really mindful of the requirement to wait for 10 seconds.

If East thought the pause was no longer than this, why did he say nothing when NS reserved their rights? He's disputing the fact that there was a hesitation, and should have called the director then.

I ruled that there was no evidence of a break in tempo, so I allowed the score to stand. I read everybody the relevant section of the Orange Book.

I am confused. Your first two paragraphs suggest that you found that West had not called within her normal tempo.

I was not trying to make any judgement on West's normal tempo. I think that West probably took some to think about her call, but that no one should have been able conclude from this that West had anything to think about, because they should have been expecting a ten-second pause in any case.

If NS had compained at the time that EW had not been following the "stop" procedure either I would have investigated further and might have ruled differently.

[Phil]

bluejak, on Apr 20 2010, 07:37 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

NS reserving their rights is essentially saying, "I don't know if you guessed right" but in case you did, I'm going to call the cops afterward.

No, it doesn't, it essentially says "I believe there was a BIT, do you agree?"

If NS are going to produce a yellow card every time its close, then I think EW should object routinely. We don't know what happened ATT, and we are discussing this in abstract.

Phil said:

I do believe the phrase "I didn't want to bid over 2♠  but wasn't going to sell out to 4♠" is incredibly self-serving, and frankly might just want me to roll this back to 4♠ -2.

Quote

Just as a woman is pregnant or not, a statement is either self-serving or not. "Incredibly" self-serving is merely an attempt to persuade by rhetoric. Of course it is self-serving: when you ask a player why he did something it is incredibly rare that the answer is not self-serving. As has been pointed out many times, self-serving statements should never be ignored, but the weight ascribed to them may be less because they are self-serving.

Of course its rhetoric - I'm trying to make a point