[lamford]

---

Table Result 3S= NS+140

The screen regulations for Chennai included the following rules:

26.1 <snip> It is considered desirable that players should vary the tempo randomly when returning the tray under the screen.

26.3g <snip> A delay in passing the tray of up to 20 seconds is not normally regarded as significant.

The purpose of these rules is believed to be to prevent UI arising when one or other side breaks tempo. Some of the time it will be obvious anyway, but not on the above hand, which angered Tony Forrester in Chennai. Kalita and Novosadzki (not Klukowski and Gawrys as originally stated) were NS, and East passed in tempo. South now took about a minute (according to Forrester; around 35 seconds according to gnasher, confirmed by the video) to pass, and West decided not to balance. The questions for readers are:
a) Whether South had anything to think about
b) Whether he could have known that a BIT here would deceive and prevent West balancing
c) Whether half to one minute is permissible to "vary the tempo randomly"
d) Whether a PP would be in order if the answers to the above are NO, YES, NO.

It is accepted by all that the result of the board is unaffected. The principle is all that is at issue.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-October-11, 17:42

[eagles123]

Can't see any legit reason to hesitate. Don't know any of them but from what I'm reading Garwys seems a bit of a tosser

[lamford]

eagles123, on 2015-October-10, 07:21, said:

Can't see any legit reason to hesitate. Don't know any of them but from what I'm reading Garwys seems a bit of a tosser

I thought he was a Bermuda Bowl winner who never used UI and whose team qualified fair and square ... I do think, however, we should avoid ad hominem attacks on here (unless against a mythical character like SB), and concern ourselves only with the merits of a ruling.

[blackshoe]

What Paul said.

My answers:

a) no, b) maybe, c) no, d) no.

Further comment: it is permissible to vary the tempo in the process of returning the tray. It is not, IMO, permissible for either player to take it upon himself to vary the tempo by adjusting the speed with which he makes his calls.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-10, 17:17, said:

Further comment: it is permissible to vary the tempo in the process of returning the tray. It is not, IMO, permissible for either player to take it upon himself to vary the tempo by adjusting the speed with which he makes his calls.

If I were a TD, I would be inclined to reply YES to (d) mainly for this reason.

If the screen divided the 3rd seat (slow passer) and 4th seat, there would be nothing to do. In this instance, it wasn't the case.

[WesleyC]

Thanks to the magic of video we can go back and watch the auction (including the 30 second pause)...

Board 5

If you play style where a RvW 3S opening is very conservative, I don't think bidding 4S is as crazy as everyone is making out. Although it will mostly be wrong looking at all the hands, it might work out nicely for tactical reasons. Even Vulnerable, 4S undoubled is a good save against a making game. I've got some sympathy for Nowosadzki taking some time to consider it (and maybe trying to pick up some vibes from his screenmate). So in this context I would lean towards Yes for a).

However, given that hand Kalita opened 3S is anything but conservative i'm not so sure...

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-October-10, 05:35, said:

Klukowski and Gawrys were NS, and East passed in tempo. South now took about a minute to pass

When you post about matters of this sort, it's even more important than usual to get your facts right. South took about 35 seconds to pass, and he was neither Klukowski nor Gawrys.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-October-11, 12:08, said:

When you post about matters of this sort, it's even more important than usual to get your facts right. South took about 35 seconds to pass, and he was neither Klukowski nor Gawrys.

I was quoting from Forrester on bridgewinners, and did not check the video, as I presume you did. I agree 35 seconds is less significant than 1 minute, although still a BIT of course, and the video confirms your assessment, but it is a pause on the same side of the screen as Forrester, so the "variation in tempo" rule does not apply. I agree it was Kalita and Nowosadzki.

Forrester has changed his original post to now read:
Just a quick note on tactics. Polish player held Jxx, Kx, Jxxx, KJ10x. Heard partner open vul 3S. Your bid? Pass of course, but it took him about a minute to find that call. Fourth chair passed thinking Pole held something. Wrong again.

This sort of stuff has to stop. Not as bad as organised cheating of course, but it still sours our great game. CUT IT OUT.

I would like to add that the player in question was a credit to his country thereafter and a joy to play against, result notwithstanding. He and the rest of his team fully deserve our congratulations, regardless of the merits of the BZ case.

The last sentence was changed from something much less generous before. It was Hampson who said that it was the same pair as the ruling, and I did not check. I should have done, and should have checked the video. My apologies, although now I know the BIT was on the same side of the screen as Forrester, I think it could have deceived, and this BIT is much more relevant than 35 seconds on the opposite side of the screen. My remarks about the screen regulations for varying tempo were also irrelevant, so I made a pig's ear of this thread.

Also, it could indeed be right to raise to 4S. Say partner has KQT9xxx xx x Qxx, then they are surely making 4H, and you are one or two off in 4S. Bidding now may well be right as Wesley says. Thinking for 35 seconds and passing will probably get your LHO to avoid a marginal protection, however, and I don't think that is right, even if you can claim something to think about.

[WesleyC]

Although I have a lot of respect for Forrester, I wasn't impressed with the way he acted on this hand either at the table or afterwards.

[mycroft]

I agree with shyams. Screen regulations on delays are for passing the tray (which is why N/S are responsible for passing the tray; they regulate tempo by holding it, E/W regulate by showing the call but not releasing it into the tray), not for anything between screenmates. This is just an ordinary L73D situation that would have been the same without screens.

Oh you want me to rule on this? Not [ ] Likely; I'm not crazy enough to get into this one.

[Fluffy]

Oh surprise this is the same player that tanked for 15 seconds on this position


Kxx

opposite

Qxx


when my partner guesses who had doubleton and played low to the King (might had been the queen) he tanked 15 seconds before playing from J10xxx. My partner ended up going down in 4♠X playing low to the queen next.

This was youth bridge (2008), but some poeple just do not change.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2015-October-20, 14:14, said:

Oh surprise this is the same player that tanked for 15 seconds on this position
Kxx
opposite
Qxx
when my partner guesses who had doubleton and played low to the King (might had been the queen) he tanked 15 seconds before playing from J10xxx. My partner ended up going down in 4♠X playing low to the queen next.

This was youth bridge (2008), but some people just do not change.

Your partner should have called the director, and a PP, or even an adjusted score, might well have been awarded, if the facts are as you state.

I think that there may have been an element of sarcasm about the comment by Forrester:
I would like to add that the player in question was a credit to his country thereafter and a joy to play against, result notwithstanding. He and the rest of his team fully deserve our congratulations, regardless of the merits of the BZ case. This was not what was originally written, as I recall. I completely disagree with WesleyC that Forrester behaved anything other than perfectly on this hand. If he had called the TD, then it was quite possible that Nowosadzki would have had a PP, which would have changed the result of the match.

[Fluffy]

We were so young (well not me, I was overage for the tournament, but they didn't expect spain to count anyway), so director only gave a "lecture" to that player and let him keep the score!. I suppose he didn't know that player was already 2 time world champion (School). I guess he listened to the lecture with a guilty face and then laughed his ass on the bar.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2015-October-21, 00:41, said:

We were so young (well not me, I was overage for the tournament, but they didn't expect spain to count anyway), so director only gave a "lecture" to that player and let him keep the score!. I suppose he didn't know that player was already 2 time world champion (School). I guess he listened to the lecture with a guilty face and then laughed his ass on the bar.

Maybe he should be called Nowogladzki ...

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-10, 17:17, said:

Further comment: it is permissible to vary the tempo in the process of returning the tray. It is not, IMO, permissible for either player to take it upon himself to vary the tempo by adjusting the speed with which he makes his calls.

I agree, but the rule as quoted by lamford is not 100% clear on this point. Has this ever been clarified in a prior ruling, or supplemental rule document, etc? If not then I would give benefit of the doubt to the player that he was trying to follow the rule. They did expressly ask for random variance in tempo, after all.

Best bet: clarify the rule and make sure all participants are informed.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2015-October-21, 08:25, said:

I agree, but the rule as quoted by lamford is not 100% clear on this point. Has this ever been clarified in a prior ruling, or supplemental rule document, etc? If not then I would give benefit of the doubt to the player that he was trying to follow the rule. They did expressly ask for random variance in tempo, after all.

Best bet: clarify the rule and make sure all participants are informed.

It is clear enough and the rule was misquoted by lamford (in the sense that it was not applicable to this BIT). The regulations include the phrase "when returning the tray". This can only apply to a BIT by East and West, as the screen is placed diagonally from North-West to South-East. North or South can indeed "hold" the tray after East or West have bid.

"The screen is placed diagonally across the table in such fashion that North and East, South and West are screenmates."

[wank]

yes south does have something to think about. 4s wouldn't be ridiculous. you have the right to give the matter as much thought as you need to make your mind up, assuming that's what you're doing. if your opp misguesses what you're thinking about, that's just unlucky for him.

[lamford]

wank, on 2015-October-22, 12:27, said:

yes south does have something to think about. 4s wouldn't be ridiculous. you have the right to give the matter as much thought as you need to make your mind up, assuming that's what you're doing. if your opp misguesses what you're thinking about, that's just unlucky for him.

You are correct that the opponent draws any inference at his peril. The relevant Law is:

73D1 It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

So, if the TD decides that you were not careful enough by taking 35 seconds to Pass 3S, he can apply Law 23, and may rule that you could be aware that the BIT was deceptive. In this case, no action by West would be successful, but if EW could make 4H ..

[wank]

lamford, on 2015-October-22, 18:34, said:

You are correct that the opponent draws any inference at his peril. The relevant Law is:

73D1 It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

So, if the TD decides that you were not careful enough by taking 35 seconds to Pass 3S, he can apply Law 23, and may rule that you could be aware that the BIT was deceptive. In this case, no action by West would be successful, but if EW could make 4H ..

but this can be understood in several ways. i'm 'careful'. i'm 'careful' to make sure that i only pause while i'm thinking about the bridge issue immediately at hand. i would be careless if i was thinking about the latest twist in Eastenders or what I should have bid on the previous round of the auction. as long as i have a genuine bridge reason for thinking and am careful to limit the duration of that thinking time to this issue, i've done everything the law requires.

[barmar]

Don't forget about 73F:

Quote

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

If you have a good bridge reason for going into the tank, then the requirements for adjusting the score are not met. The opponent draws inferences about your hesitation at his own risk.