[peachy]

This appeal was reported in today's Bulletin from the San Diego NABC.

http://www.acbl.org/...tins/2009/03/5/


The link has the full article, but the gist of it is this:

2NT (3S) ...P (P)
3NT (P) P (P)

After 2NT, the opener's partner hesitated for about 5-7 seconds.
Director was called during auction and then after the hand.

Before I had finished reading the write-up, I thought this would be the clearest case of using UI in the history of bridge when a 2NT opener in solo rebids 3NT, with a 19-count and Qxx in spades. To my astonishment, the AC (which included David Stevenson as one of the members) allowed the table result to stand. I don't understand...

[awm]

This is the 2nd appeals case this nationals where the director's ruling was overturned on the reasoning that a break in tempo (for which the director had been called and on the basis of which the director had ruled) did not actually occur.

It's interesting, because I thought the determination of whether there was a BIT was usually left to the director, with the appeals committee determining other things like which are the LA and what the BIT suggests.

My suspicion is that the discussion leading to this decision is not faithfully represented in the writeup. Someone must've said something that caused the committee to doubt that the BIT had occurred.

[jdonn]

peachy, on Dec 1 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Before I had finished reading the write-up, I thought this would be the clearest case of using UI in the history of bridge when a 2NT opener in solo rebids 3NT, with a 19-count and Qxx in spades. To my astonishment, the AC (which included David Stevenson as one of the members) allowed the table result to stand.  I don't understand...

What opener holds doesn't matter when applying the law. If they determine there was no UI then opener is free to do as he chooses with any hand.

Does taking 5-7 seconds to bid on this auction (not "hesitating" for 5-7 seconds as you say, otherwise every bid would be a hesitation) constitute UI? I feel there probably was UI transmitted. The committee decided there wasn't. Who can really tell for sure unless they were kibitzing and paying close attention? I don't envy the committee having to decide.

[jdonn]

awm, on Dec 1 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

This is the 2nd appeals case this nationals where the director's ruling was overturned on the reasoning that a break in tempo (for which the director had been called and on the basis of which the director had ruled) did not actually occur.

It's interesting, because I thought the determination of whether there was a BIT was usually left to the director, with the appeals committee determining other things like which are the LA and what the BIT suggests.

The director determined the amount of time taken. I don't see why interpreting that is outside the jurisdiction of the committee.

Director: The player took 5-7 seconds to bid.
Committee: 5-7 seconds before passing on this auction is not a break in tempo / doesn't transmit UI.

The process seems fine to me.

[peachy]

jdonn, on Dec 1 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

Does taking 5-7 seconds to bid on this auction (not "hesitating" for 5-7 seconds as you say, otherwise every bid would be a hesitation)

I could have said "took 5-7 seconds before making his call" but I used the common terminology "hesitated" which in my estimation only means that "more time than normal is taken". But you are right, use proper terminology.

As you said, the AC decided this 5-7 seconds did not constitute a BIT, therefore there was no UI and opener was free to make any call. And the AC did establish as a fact that 5-7 seconds was taken, confirming TD finding.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps this player normally takes 5-7 seconds to call.

[TylerE]

Tangent: Does any one else wish that overcalls of NT bids or strong forcing bids were treated as skip bids for stop card/hesitation purposes.

[richlp]

blackshoe, on Dec 1 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Perhaps this player normally takes 5-7 seconds to call.

Perhaps............

But unless there has been an alert of some sort, my taking 5 seconds to pass is a definite BIT (and I think that I'm usually a fairly slow player).

[paulg]

This is an unusual auction. Your partner opens 2NT and that means that any hand with 3+ points, and some that are weaker, are going to consider what to do.

Then RHO overcalls. This is very rare and you would expect everyone to think at this point. Only someone with a flat zero count can bring out a Pass card with no thought.

So you should always take a few seconds to consider your bid. The fast Pass is just as bad as a long hesitation.

So I can understand the AC's decision.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Only someone with a flat zero count can bring out a Pass card with no thought.

So if he has thought for 5-7 seconds don't you have the UI that he has not got a 0 count thus making 3NT more attractive? The point is that responder should bid in tempo. I don't personally think as much as 7 seconds is in tempo although I agree that slapping a pass card on the table in 0.3 seconds is just as bad as a long pause.

[bluejak]

So you pick up an ordinary hand, and partner opens 2NT. No doubt you can respond like a flash: if you have five hearts it involves no thought process whatever to transfer. Stayman with four card suit: how long does that take?

Just as you reach for your bidding box - shock, horror - you realise RHO has bid 3♠. What now?

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

Quote

It's interesting, because I thought the determination of whether there was a BIT was usually left to the director, with the appeals committee determining other things like which are the LA and what the BIT suggests.

True. The TD determined there was a 5-7 second pause. The AC did not disagree.

I cannot possibly put our decision more clearly than jdonn has:

Quote

Director: The player took 5-7 seconds to bid.
Committee: 5-7 seconds before passing on this auction is not a break in tempo / doesn't transmit UI.

That is what we decided.

[helene_t]

TylerE, on Dec 1 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

Tangent: Does any one else wish that overcalls of NT bids or strong forcing bids were treated as skip bids for stop card/hesitation purposes.

They are.

This doesn't mean that you should play the stop card which you only do when you jump.

But LHO's normal tempo is a little slower here than if you had passed.

I think if responder had passed after 2 secs it might very well be a BIT. The correct thing to do is to wait some 5 secs before passing, in order not to transmit UI.

[gnasher]

If a 5-7 second pause isn't a break in tempo, is there a corollary that after a fast pass opener is obliged to bid 3NT with a hand of this type? And would I have much success with a director or committee in arguing that?

(By "a hand of this type", I don't mean all 2NT openers, but just the prime ones with a 5-card suit, even if minimum.)

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

Quote

It's interesting, because I thought the determination of whether there was a BIT was usually left to the director, with the appeals committee determining other things like which are the LA and what the BIT suggests.

True. The TD determined there was a 5-7 second pause. The AC did not disagree.

I cannot possibly put our decision more clearly than jdonn has:

Quote

Director: The player took 5-7 seconds to bid.
Committee: 5-7 seconds before passing on this auction is not a break in tempo / doesn't transmit UI.

That is what we decided.

Just to be clear, it's the process I am defending. In other words, I think the committee has every right to decide the way it did in principle. I don't particularly agree with the decision in this particular case.

Essentially, as an outside observer (not someone stuck in the situation of having to apply the law) I can ask myself the question "why in the world would north really have bid 3NT at the table on his unexceptional subminimum hand?" and reach the obvious answer.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

Only if you were about to bid - not if you were going to pass. So the UI from the slow pass may well suggest that the player was intending to bid, not pass.

[gordontd]

Interesting that

Quote

North-South said that they play automatic
reopenings. Their convention card is marked “Auto
reopenings over 1X-1Y-Pass-Pass.”

is presented as relevant to this case.

I wonder if they play negative doubles in this situation. If they do, I'm surprised that South didn't employ one. If they don't, I don't see why they need "auto-reopenings", nor why it's relevant what their arrangements are after 1X-1Y-Pass-Pass.

[aguahombre]

When I read that Bulletin, everything Josh has said--especially his last post --was how I felt. And David had the (I suspect) conflicting duty to apply the laws in the situation as much as he probably hated that 3NT bid.

[jdonn]

gordontd, on Dec 2 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Interesting that

Quote

North-South said that they play automatic
reopenings. Their convention card is marked “Auto
reopenings over 1X-1Y-Pass-Pass.”

is presented as relevant to this case.

It's only relevent because they argued it. Of course it's an argument that is both stupid and self-serving, not to mention conflicted by his statement that he would have passed if he had detected a break in tempo from his partner.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

gordontd, on Dec 2 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Interesting that

Quote

North-South said that they play automatic
reopenings. Their convention card is marked “Auto
reopenings over 1X-1Y-Pass-Pass.”

is presented as relevant to this case.

It's only relevent because they argued it. Of course it's an argument that is both stupid and self-serving, not to mention conflicted by his statement that he would have passed if he had detected a break in tempo from his partner.

I know NS very well. They love to appeal director's rulings. I have some friends that think they walk the line on hesitations, etc., although I've never been personally affected.

I'd like to see this convention card entry. The next time they play against me, and it goes 1x - (1y) - p - p I will report it here. It is indeed a stupid argument, as well as irrelevant since this auction occurred at the three level.

edit: I wonder how Levin let in 3N? Doesn't it look ridiculously easy to beat?

This post has been edited by Phil: 2009-December-02, 14:13

[axman]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

So you pick up an ordinary hand, and partner opens 2NT. No doubt you can respond like a flash: if you have five hearts it involves no thought process whatever to transfer. Stayman with four card suit: how long does that take?

Just as you reach for your bidding box - shock, horror - you realise RHO has bid 3♠. What now?

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

Quote

It's interesting, because I thought the determination of whether there was a BIT was usually left to the director, with the appeals committee determining other things like which are the LA and what the BIT suggests.

True. The TD determined there was a 5-7 second pause. The AC did not disagree.

I cannot possibly put our decision more clearly than jdonn has:

Quote

Director: The player took 5-7 seconds to bid.
Committee: 5-7 seconds before passing on this auction is not a break in tempo / doesn't transmit UI.

That is what we decided.

I am troubled by the finding that S did not create unauthorized inferences.

first, where was it established that S has a consistent 5-7s tempo? As I expect, I would discover that south's tempo is all over the place in which case every call would carry unauthorized inferences.

the CoC provides S [along with all the players] 10-12s to consider the ramifications of 2N prior to any further action. Specifically, that S has already been provided 10-12s to contemplate action over interference by E [which notably would likely be, if anything, 3S]. This means that S has actually taken 17s to call [the 10-12s provided by E plus the 7s subsequent]

A further comment. COnsider, had E in fact not provided the full 10s pause there can be good foundation to find that taking 7s [or even more] would not convey unautorized inferences as, indeed, consideration for some of such time ought to be given for the effect of E infracting the CoC.