[rvbridge]

Scoring: IMP

---

North South
1 ♦ 1 ♠
4♣ (1) 4♥ (2)
4♠ 4NT (3)
5 ♣ (4) 6♠

1) Strong Splinter, Good 18+
2) Cue bid
3) 20 secs before tray came back with 4♠ bid
4) 1 or 4 key cards

Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling

North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. At the table, East called the director at the end of the auction since North did take some time (around 20 secs) before bidding 4♠ on which South proceeded further with 4N. South scored 12 tricks in 6♠ . Director verified that North indeed took some time before bidding 4♠. He felt that pass of 4♠ was a logical alternative from South’s side, hence director adjusted the score to 4 making 12 tricks (Law 16B1)

Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations

North-South appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together.
AC checked with both North and South on their splinter style. Both North and South clearly mentioned that they play weaker splinters (16-17/18) via 3 ♥ bid. Bid of 4 showed strong splinter 18-21.

AC checked with South why he by-passed 4 ♦ cue after partner’s 4♣ . South’s contention was that they do not cue shortness in partner’s suit. Additionally South indicated that his bid of 4♥ was unambiguous cue and that they do not play last train or any nebulous slam tries.

AC asked South why he did not bid 4N directly on 4♣ if he intended to go to 5 level in any case. South’s contention was that he felt it is better for North to take control in case he had a stronger hand and / or club void especially if GS is on. Additionally South clarified that he knew 5 level was safe and that his hand warranted another try even if partner signs off.

AC also checked with both North and South on their RKC response and it was clarified that they play 1430 and that North had wrongly bid 5♣ which indicated 1 or 4 keys. South informed AC that North cannot have 1 key card after strong splinter and bid the slam assuming he had 4 keys. Additionally he said that he did not consider trying for GS since partner had signed off earlier and their side was likely to have a slow ♥ loser.

AC verified the explanation of direct splinter range (Good 18+) and RKC response from NS convention card / system notes. It was clearly mentioned in the system notes that RKC response was 1430 and 3♥ response on 1♠ did show medium range splinter (16-18) as one of the options, but there was no explicit mention of 4 level bids (4♣) on 1♠ . There was no mention of any special cue bidding style (not showing shortness in partner’s suit or Last train etc) as well.
AC felt that the hesitation indicated that North was considering bidding over 4 ♠ since he had a better hand. Additionally the AC felt that the pause could also imply that North was worried about his diamond holding (in the absence of 4 ♦ cue by partner). Even if South had considered bidding on to 5 level in any case, his partner’s hesitation clearly made it a more attractive proposition. AC concluded that some of South’s peers (20% of other world class players) would consider passing 4♠ on this auction. Hence the AC upheld the director’s ruling and rejected the appeal and let the table result stands. Appeal was deemed to have merit and deposit was returned.

A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s ruling , AC proceedings and variations to get a better perspective:
a) What is your ruling on the appeal based on above facts?
Is it procedurally correct on part of East to draw attention to any potential infraction on other side of screen? Instead, should West call the director?
c) Should the director ask any further questions before giving his ruling?
d) Should director allow table result to stand and advise EW to appeal?
e) Should the director check with a few experts on whether they will bid on in South’s seat after North’s sign-off in 4 ♠ given the explanation of other bids?
f) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts?
g) Should AC question North and South separately to verify system details?
h) Does wrong response to Ace asking response have any relevance to the appeal?
i) Does absence of written system notes on explicit meaning of 4♣ (strong splinter) or cue bidding style (not showing shortness in partner’s suit) have any relevance to appeal?
j) How relevant is the quality of South player (WC-3 time BB QFs) and NS partnership (8+years and one of best in the country) in evaluating the appeal? Will you change your final ruling if South is just an advanced player or even new NS partnership of top class players?
k) Will you change your ruling if South held say, QJTXX, AJXX, X, QXX or QJXXX, ATXX, Q, XXX instead of actual hand?

[awm]

I think everything that happened here is basically correct, with the exception that I would like to see a poll of top-class players as to whether they would bid on over 4♠ (if not by the director, then by the committee). I'm not convinced that passing 4♠, especially when opener had 3♥ available to show a weaker splinter, was a logical alternative.

[jdonn]

I think the entire issue of the available weaker splinter through 3♥ is simply a red herring, since 4♣ still seems to show the same range it would show for anyone else.

I don't know how I would rule, but frankly the messing up of the blackwood response makes me give less credibility to the arguments made by NS.

Agree with doing a poll.

[MFA]

With all respect I think that this case would have been a very easy "result stands" in an international competition.

Quote

North and East were screen-mates.
At the table, East called the director at the end of the auction since North did take some time...

This is a huge problem. It's always the player on the other side who should call attention to a BIT. It could easily be so that the other side of the screen didn't notice a thing.

Quote

...North did take some time (around 20 secs)

This is not much playing with screens.

The combination of these facts would most certainly lead an international TD to judge that there was no BIT and South was free to bid as he liked.

Let me quote from the 2008 WMSG screen regulations:

Quote

26.3.D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call attention to the fact. If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there may be unauthorized information consequent upon an abnormally slow return of the tray the procedure in Law 16B2 applies.
In no circumstances will a delay of up to 20 seconds be considered to have implications.

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...Regulations.pdf

[mich-b]

Agree with both points mentioned by MFA.
Also , I think south's hand is worth bidding again after a (in tempo) signoff.

[brianshark]

I think this case should come down entirely to a poll of what a poll of peers would do in the given situation.

Indicentally, I hate it when directors or appeal chairmen ask people what they would do without hesitation and then what they would do with hesitation. What they would do with hesitation should be completely irrelevant when deciding whether a call had logical alternatives.

[PeterGill]

If it were a WBF event or an Australian event with screens, the rules make this ruling very simple. East called the Director, hence no adjustment. One reason
that it must be West who calls the Director is that West is on the same side of
the screen as South, and thus is able to identify a noticeable hesitation better
than North can. The same regulations allow for East to hold up the tray
movement by introducing small hesitations if desired.

I'm surprised that nobody seems to (emphasis on "seems to") have checked
the screen regulations that apply in India. Most countries mirror the WBF regulations in their Trials for Sao Paulo. If India doesn't, shouldn't they change their Trials Regulations to be consistent with the event that the Trials lead to?

The Australian regulations can be found at http://www.abf.com.a...reenRegs092.pdf
Oddly, the last update of these regulations is on 1 April 2009
(tomorrow, an April Fools joke?)

The 2008 WBF Regulations are at
www.worldbridge.org/departments/rules/GeneralConditionsOfContest2008.pdf

[PeterGill]

Beijing's WBF Regs actually are at:
http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/rul...Contest2008.pdf

[skjaeran]

Agree that the Indian NBO should change their screen regulations.

This case wouldn't be ruled upon in Norway - table result stands.

[Cascade]

We had a similar appeal at our National Trials in 2006 where I was at the table.

The screen regulations at the time stated unequivocally that it was an infraction for a player on the same side of the screen as a hesitation occurred to point out the hesitation. Nevertheless the TD ignored the regulation and ruled against me. The ruling was appealed at the event but the committee did not overturn the director - he may have instructed them that his ruling was final on a point of law. Eventually over 12 months later the national organization's appeal committee overturned the ruling.

Here is the hand:

Scoring: IMP

Pass 3♦ Pass* Pass
3♥ Pass 4♥ Pass
Pass Pass

* alleged hesitation

---

The result of this incident was that the NZ Bridge Chief Director who doubles as the chairperson on the Laws and Regulations Committee had the regulation ammended so that in New Zealand it is no longer an infraction to point out such a hesitation after the play of the hand.

I like the standard international regulation and interpretation much better. If the players on the other side of the screen do not notice the hesitation then the screen has done its job in diminishing any unauthorized information.

I believe there has been another similar case in a major international event in the last year or so - perhaps in Europe.

[rvbridge]

Thanks for all the comments:

Can we summarise the discussion to the following points:

a) If the COC clearly mentions that the folks on the other side of hesitation should clearly notice the BIT and call the director, then EW don't have a case.

In case the COC clearly doesn't state who should call the director in case of BIT and if the director can clearly establish the BIT did happen by North, then it is close decision and director's / AC ruling is reasonable. The panel also feels that the decision is so close that they are willing to reconsider their decision if a pool amongst experts clearly brings out that most of South's peers would have acted even w/o any BIT.

c) In real life since neither the director nor AC can conduct such a poll in most cases, they need to use their own bridge judgement and make a decision. This seems to be the best process within the constraints.

Also should we propose a bridge rule/law change to play with clocks (similar to Chess) so that we can pin-point BIT clearly w/o relying on the statements of affected players who may not always be honest or ethical.

[TimG]

rvbridge, on Apr 1 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

Also should we propose a bridge rule/law change to play with clocks (similar to Chess) so that we can pin-point BIT clearly w/o relying on the statements of affected players who may not always be honest or ethical.

No, because a hesitation that might be a BIT in one instance won't be in another; it's not nearly as simple as 8 seconds is not a BIT while 9 seconds is a BIT.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Apr 2 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

rvbridge, on Apr 1 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

Also should we propose a bridge rule/law change to play with clocks (similar to Chess) so that we can pin-point BIT clearly w/o relying on the statements of affected players who may not always be honest or ethical.

No, because a hesitation that might be a BIT in one instance won't be in another; it's not nearly as simple as 8 seconds is not a BIT while 9 seconds is a BIT.

While this is true.

The problem it would solve is:

"You hesitated for 30 sec"

"I may have been a little slow but it was nothing like 30 sec"

I think an advancement would be not only having a clock but also (or instead) a camera at the table recording events so that disputes as to facts (at least in some cases) can be easily resolved.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Apr 1 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I think an advancement would be not only having a clock but also (or instead) a camera at the table recording events so that disputes as to facts (at least in some cases) can be easily resolved.

You may be right, but something about instant replay in bridge strikes me as wrong.

[jdonn]

Cameras are a much better idea than clocks. Of course computers are the best idea as far as breaks in tempo, and would solve many other problems too (such as the barometer discussion in the other thread) but I would say we are at least a decade from that happening, if not longer.

[PeterGill]

With Bidding Cards landing on the table (or tray), you just need a mechanised cloth or tray that can identify the time when each bid touched the cloth or table.
For the card play, the same cloth could detect hesitations in the card play too.