[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 15:44, said:

In the case you cite, it appears your opponents weren't damaged, so they would probably, in practice, not have needed to call the TD (save for the education thing, but he should have already done that). But it sounds like the TD should have ruled that there was no break in tempo, so he should have told the table that, and that no further call would be necessary. Did he rule there was a break?

I don't recall precisely, but I think he was kind of vague on this point, but mostly leaning towards there not being a break because of the skip bid.

My partner did actually have something to think about. He was 5=6 in the majors after the auction (1♣) Pass (3♣*weak). He took somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds to pass. I then balanced with 3♦, holding 11HCP and ♦Jxxxx ♣Kx and 3-3 majors. I think my only LAs were double and 3♦, and double would have turned out to be far more successful.

[blackshoe]

"Vague" is typical of many club level TDs on this point, I'm afraid. Still, it seems to me that he should have made a decision one way or 'tother, and if the decision was "no break", then he should not have suggested he be called back later.

[mycroft]

"call me if you think you were damaged" does not - or should not, at least - mean "I'm going to assume everything's fine unless you call me back."

I will frequently walk away with "call me if you think you were damaged", and go and look up the hand records, and determine whether, in my opinion, there's a potential case for damage. Now, I'm not as good at your system as you are, and I'm not as good (or as bad) a player as some, so I may miss something. So, call me back if you think you have a a reason, and I'll trigger an investigation myself if I think you have a reason, and I'll try to explain if you think you have a reason but it's not legally valid, or if there is a reason, but there is no damage because of...

Obviously, if I'm a playing TD, I'm going to put a little less effort into it, but I'll still try - after I've played the hand, if possible, but if not, then not. One of the downsides to playing TDs, but it's better than a half-table.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 21:42, said:

"Vague" is typical of many club level TDs on this point, I'm afraid. Still, it seems to me that he should have made a decision one way or 'tother, and if the decision was "no break", then he should not have suggested he be called back later.

This was at a regional, and he was a pretty experienced TD. Thinking back on it, what I think he may have said was something like "I don't think there was a hesitation, but call me back if you think there was a problem."

[blackshoe]

Doesn't make any sense to me. If there was no hesitation, then there's no basis for a score adjustment. Did he expect he would change his mind?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-03, 17:54, said:

Doesn't make any sense to me. If there was no hesitation, then there's no basis for a score adjustment. Did he expect he would change his mind?

Maybe it was to give him an opportunity to try to convince him that there really was a hesitation. I don't know.

I just remember that it wasn't a definitive "Sorry, no hesitation, play on."

[enjoyaja]

I want to ask something
Is 1S - 2C - 2NT a Jacoby 2NT?

[blackshoe]

I suppose some could agree that it is, but generally, no. Why?