Re: Lost

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:37:00 -0500, David Grabiner <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

I adjust all of the time. Players call to complain about hesitations. Often everything lines up including the results of a poll, and I adjust. Once or twice a week, I think.

The better players are, for the most part, sensitive to this problem in their own bidding. They will, say, pass because their partner has hesitated even though they might have bid if their partner had not.

So a hesitation that gives partner useful information is cause for further investigation when I direct.

But, to put the problem paradoxically, what if the hesitation is not EI but gives partner UI?



>
> 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