Re: Lost

I have called the director occasionally when there was a failure to
hesitate over the Stop card in a time-sensitive auction (not 1N-3N, when
nobody hesitates).  At most, the director has warned the opponents, and I
have never seen an adjusted score.

One example: 1S-(X)-4S-(P); P-(P)  The 4S bidder used the Stop card, and
the pass over 4S was fast..  I was opener, and called the director, who
warned the opponents.  4S was beatable but made at the table.  The doubler
had extra values and his partner had a weak balanced hand.  I believe a
second double was a LA, and if the director agreed, he should have adjusted
-420 to -590, but didn't.

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Volker Walther <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to
> impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not
> wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during
> the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom
> sanctioned.
>
> When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking
> until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too
> early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have
> to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early.
>
> But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive
> information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will
> hardly accept these penalties.
>
> Lost, too
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
> Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick:
> > I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction,
> East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized
> information to her partner.
> >
> > West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there
> was no infraction.
> >
> > Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had
> something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she
> would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east
> correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about
> it.
> >
> > So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately
> hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI.
> >
> > The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and
> everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card,
> that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW.
> >
> > But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW
> managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper
> procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI
> when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way
> before, maybe that's the solution here.)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
>
>
> --
> Volker Walther
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml