BBO Discussion Forums: Timeliness of Rulings - BBO Discussion Forums

A situation arose a few months ago where I requested a ruling on whether a weak non-forcing 2H bid on the auction

P P 1D 2C
2H ...

required an alert. The player held six hearts and five hcp and this was not a surprise to the partnership. I am not concerned now with the ruling. I am concerned with the timeliness.

This happened in round two of eight (I think) rounds.

National Director at a local club tournament.

What expectations do you have for the timeliness of the ruling?

Do any of the options constitute an unreasonable delay?

You don't say how long the rounds are.

Was the director playing? Now many tables? Was it Swiss? Barometer? Were there other (non-playing) directors?

Did you just want a ruling on whether 2H should be alerted, or did you want a ruling on damage from misinformation from the missing alert?

gordontd, on 2016-February-10, 02:31, said:

I did in the subtitle. Maybe not the best place.

Eight board rounds.

RMB1, on 2016-February-10, 05:18, said:

Not a playing director.

Approximately 18 tables.

Swiss with scores published after each round (8 boards) - so I guess that is Barometer in a way.

No other directors as best I recall.

Cascade, on 2016-February-10, 12:44, said:

I still can't see it so maybe it doesn't show in the app. I would normally expect the td to have got back to me by the lunch break, either with a decision or an update of the expected timeline.

gordontd, on 2016-February-11, 04:19, said:

Comparing the app with the web version leads me to believe this is the case so perhaps posters will avoid putting important information in the sub-title where it won't be seen by anyone accessing the forums from the app rather than on a webpage?

gordontd, on 2016-February-11, 09:32, said:

Hmm, it seems to be very traditional to put extra information like the jurisdiction there.

But I don't see why they can't repeat it in the OP as well.

The general question given in the OP is unanswerable, because it depends so much on the circumstances and the ruling,
In general, if there is a non-playing director, I think it is timely to give:
- a rulebook ruling that affects the immediate play of the board (insufficient bid, lead out of turn etc) immediately
- a lawbook ruling after the end of play (e.g. revoke) often straight after the end of play of the hand, or at the latest by the end of the match (possibly easier to prevent interruption)
- a judgement ruling (e.g. A claim) idally by the end of the match but may depend on consultation required or how hard it is or when in the match it came up failing that by the next major break (lunchtime in your example)

For a Swiss event, I will try harder to give a ruling in time to allow assignments for the next round; if it is a 2x24 board straight matchpoint event (say) I think it is fair enough to wait until the end of the session to give a judgement ruling, not least because it takes time away from play at the table for a pair not involved in the ruling.

Overall I would rather a TD gave a good ruling slightly more slowly than a bad ruling quickly.

No complaint with the general outline in Frances's answer -- but "does sequence X require an alert?" is the type I expect an immediate answer for. If the director actually has to get out the alert chart for something that doesn't come up often, he might be back a minute or two later. (As to the actual bidding sequence posted, I would have guessed natural and nonforcing was the standard meaning everywhere in the world, but I should know better than to guess at things like that.)

ACBL chart says "Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand" are alertable. Simple conclusion: "Non-forcing suit bids by a passed hand" is not alertable.

szgyula, on 2016-February-15, 07:19, said:

But there is a considerable difference between, say, 9-11 non-forcing and 3-6 non-forcing. If you knew that "everyone" in an area plays it one way and you played it the other, would you not alert the opps to this? Forcing versus non-forcing is not the only basis for a call requiring an alert.

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-15, 08:00, said:

Right. I think that falls under the rules "Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted" and "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes ... weak bids that sound strong, ..."

I think most would expect that a 2/1 bid by a passed hand is constructive, and if it can be significantly weaker than this it should be alerted.

barmar, on 2016-February-15, 15:53, said:

....which was presumably the point of Wayne's question and the reason why "non-forcing so no alert" is not really a sufficient answer.

I think that you need to divide the matter into two pieces:

1) Is there an infraction?
Does the 2♥ bid require an alert? This question should be answered immediately. If the case arose before the opening lead, one of the players may be entitled to change his last call.

2) What is the final ruling?
This can be somewhat later. It may be necessary to investigate whether there was damage. It may be necessary to poll some peers. This can take some time. I think it is entirely reasonable to poll players during the lunch break, or in between rounds, and give the ruling at the start of the next session. I don't think that it is reasonable to ask that a TD gives this kind of ruling in a few minutes.

Rik

Trinidad, on 2016-February-16, 05:59, said:

IMHO the Director must never announce to the involved players any ruling that could be influenced by his knowledge about cards yet to be played.

Such rulings should be delayed until all cards from the affected board is known to all players, i.e. until play of the board has been completed.

The reason is simply that such rulings can well give extraneous information about the board in play to the players at the table. Worst case such information can even make the board unplayable.

pran, on 2016-February-16, 09:05, said:

On one hand, the TD should never ever make an MI ruling based on the cards a particular player holds. An MI ruling is based on the system the players play. Law 20F(4) may apply (call the TD if you gave MI), 21B3 gives the TD the explicit right to adjust the score. So does 40B4.

The UI issue you raise is quite simple: How was the potential MI discovered? Either asking for an explanation later or by looking at the dummy when dummy is faced. In that case it is correct to call the TD and ask for a ruling. There is not UI generated. On the other, calling the TD claiming that "My opponents can not have more than 5 points so his bid is not in sync with the explanation or lack of alert" is clearly a blatant UI case and shoul dbe treated harshly.

The 2H in the example is not necessarily non forcing. The player making the bid may have psyched. Thus, calling the TD that "player X can not have enough points to make a forcing 2H, thus, the 2H is not forcing, thus, I was given MI" is insane.

As a counter example, if you ask for explanation before the opening lead (heck, even during play) and you are told that 2H was indeed non forcing, you can call the TD and the TD should rule MI/not MI on the spot.

Just one side remark: I can not interpret the 'If you knew that "everyone" in an area plays it one way...' argument. One bid is either alertable or it is not. This does not depend on what you suspect, how well you know people, what is the phase of Jupiter and what is the price of tea in China. A Martian dropping in for just for a hand must be able to alert properly. If he can not, the rules are vague, which leads to trouble.

szgyula, on 2016-February-17, 02:42, said:

Have you actually read the thread at all? The question is not whether the 2♥ call is forcing or not. Not to mention that if your system is catering to an opening pass being a psyche, there is almost certainly MI going on (CPUs) and in many cases an illegal system in use.

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-17, 04:06, said:

Have YOU read the thread, I wonder

I quoted the ACBL alert chart: (mandatory alert) "Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand" is to be alerted. Going back to Cicero: "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted), we can safely conclude that certain non-forcing suit bids by an passed hand are not to be alerted.

The counter argument was raised that even if 2H in that situation is not forcing in general and not to be alerted, a 2H with "six hearts and five hcp" is not a generally expected agreement, thus an alert is required. My points were made about this:

1. The TD must establish what the 2H agreement is. Either six hearts and five hcp is an agreement (can be implicit) or it is a psych. The TD can just as well establish that the agreement for this situation is 4+♥ and invitational strength, i.e. 2♥ was a psych. Or even a mistake (e.g. player did not notice the 2♣ intervention).

2. The TD must also investigate how the actual weak holding was established by the player calling the TD. One possibility is that the player added up the points in his hand and the points promised by the 1♦ and 2♣ bids and concluded that the 2♥ bid must be very weak. If this happened (unlikely), the TD call was illegal and equity must be restored.

szgyula, on 2016-February-17, 08:37, said:

Well, yes...

szgyula, on 2016-February-17, 08:37, said:

This was addressed in posts #12-14 so simply repeating yourself is not particularly productive.

szgyula, on 2016-February-17, 08:37, said:

This is where I get the impression you are not following the thread. Wayne made it clear in the OP that the pair in question had an agreement, whether implicit or explicit, to include the 5hcp hand in their 2♥ free bid. It was also clear that the ruling was being requested after the hand, so your side story about illegal TD calls and counting hcp is simply a red herring. Or perhaps it is my that is confused... In any case, I suggest you go back and re-read the thread just in case it is not me misunderstanding things.