[gnasher]

Player: [Something about an opponent's hesitiation]

Director: You didn't call me at the time?

Player: No, I didn't see any need.

Director: Just so that you know for next time, you should call me at the time, because there are some options I could've offered you then that I can't offer now.

Player: OK.

Director: Now, are you saying that he bid on the hesitation?

Player: No, I'm not saying that, because I haven't seen his hand yet. I'm just saying that there was some unauthorised information.

Director: I know it's not an easy thing to say, but you've got to say it.

At this point someone asked them to keep their voices down, so I didn't hear the rest of the conversation. Perhaps that's just as well.

[Vampyr]

Would love to know the options available at the time of a BIT.

[blackshoe]

So would I.

[pran]

There is only one option:
Director: "OK I have noted it. Continue auction/play and call me again if you feel that you have been damaged by use of UI."
(to hesitator's partner): "It is your obligation to carefully avoid any use of possible information from the BIT."

[blackshoe]

I'm kind of curious about "I know it's not an easy thing to say, but you've got to say it." What the heck does that mean?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-08, 01:21, said:

I'm kind of curious about "I know it's not an easy thing to say, but you've got to say it." What the heck does that mean?

I think it means "please call your opponent a cheat before you have any evidence to do so"

(but I wasnt there )

[WellSpyder]

Do the better TDs handle the side games, on the assumption that the players can look after themselves in the Spingold?

[paulg]

WellSpyder, on 2013-August-08, 03:02, said:

Do the better TDs handle the side games, on the assumption that the players can look after themselves in the Spingold?

No, the best TDs are in the Spingold and I'm surprised at Andy's post. There are some pretty good ones overseeing the side games too although the one who comes to your table might be less experienced.

[gnasher]

This was the "first round" of the Spingold, where the only teams playing were twelve low-seeded teams, so they may not have put their best people in charge,

[billw55]

I assume this is a conversation happening at the table - perhaps after the auction but before play? That sounds like a good time to call the director to me.

[ggwhiz]

So he called for a director and they sent a caddy?

[Phil]

Some interesting rulings I've seen in Atlanta.:

- in the LMs I found out about the 'rule change' that stated that only the person next to play could accept declarer's lead out of turn.

- in the case of a corrected explanation before the opening lead I've been told tat only the last player to act on the NOS has the chance to change their call but I was also told that EITHER player may change their call. Here, one of the directors is correct at least.

- teammates had a zinger ruling against Lynch. Director couldn't figure how my teammate 'knew' his side had at least an 11 card diamond fit when his RHO opened a Polish 2H, rebid clubs and his partner splintered in diamonds. He must have used UI to find the profitable dive.

[Mbodell]

Phil, on 2013-August-08, 21:50, said:

Some interesting rulings I've seen in Atlanta.:

- teammates had a zinger ruling against Lynch. Director couldn't figure how my teammate 'knew' his side had at least an 11 card diamond fit when his RHO opened a Polish 2H, rebid clubs and his partner splintered in diamonds. He must have used UI to find the profitable dive.

Odds that the ruling would have gone the same way if your team were the polish 2H bidders and the name seeded team found the sac?

I haven't had any bad director rulings so far (knock on wood), but I did see a couple of irregularities.

In the side 2 session swiss yesterday the directors setup the boards with two board set with the same numbers (different colors) next to each other. But the colors were switched in the cross over at setup. So when the caddies tried to deliver the boards the players side that's the wrong color, and then switched across matches. We started with 4 boards on our table and received 3 and passed 3 at the half, so when we finished our 7 boards I called the caddy and got the 7th delivered but noticed the caddy was delivering it to the wrong table. And that's when the mixup was discovered so we ended up having to play a different final 3 boards, and our team mates played a different 4 final boards (and same at the adjacent table). No harm no foul other than a slightly longer first round (we finished the extra boards at our table still in the time for the round, our teammates started the last "real" board with just 1 minute on the clock for the round so we were about 5 minutes late reporting, but the directors let it slide since it was their fault [not the caddies] for the setup).

In the mixed BAM tonight we finished our first round, moved for the next round, and the team following us was still playing. A minute later as I'm bidding I notice the pair we were following isn't at the next table (which is a problem because they are the slowest pair in the world [and my partner isn't fast] and we waited each round in the afternoon) which is empty. When I look back I notice they are sitting at the table we left. I call the director and they stop the table and are able to salvage the board for the right team.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2013-August-08, 21:50, said:

Some interesting rulings I've seen in Atlanta.:

- in the LMs I found out about the 'rule change' that stated that only the person next to play could accept declarer's lead out of turn.

- in the case of a corrected explanation before the opening lead I've been told tat only the last player to act on the NOS has the chance to change their call but I was also told that EITHER player may change their call. Here, one of the directors is correct at least.

- teammates had a zinger ruling against Lynch. Director couldn't figure how my teammate 'knew' his side had at least an 11 card diamond fit when his RHO opened a Polish 2H, rebid clubs and his partner splintered in diamonds. He must have used UI to find the profitable dive.

Quote

Law 55A: If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail.

Any director who tells me this law has changed had better be able to document it.

Quote

Law 21B1{a}: Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

The one who told you either player could change his call was wrong.

"He must have used UI" is a BS ruling. Worth an appeal, IMO, if only to educate the idiot who made the ruling.

[gnasher]

I was told that it was improper for me, as a defender, at my turn, to detach a card from my hand, hold it in a position where nobody could see it, replace it in my hand, and then play another card.

When I asked the director to show me the rule that said this, he came back (presumably after a frantic search of his previously unread lawbook) and told me that it conveyed unauthorised information, and conveying unauthorised information was improper.

I told him that it wasn't improper to convey UI in the course of playing the game, and that thinking was part of the game, and therefore I had done nothing improper. He didn't argue, but he told the opponents that if I did it again they was to call him, so that he could make sure my partner didn't take advantage of it.

[billw55]

I guess there is no rule against detaching cards, but I do think it is a bad habit, and that it could possibly be UI - suggesting that you have a close alternative lead. I try to avoid it.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-August-09, 06:31, said:

[snip] he told the opponents that if I did it again they was to call him, so that he could make sure my partner didn't take advantage of it.

Uh huh. He'd have done better to tell them to follow the law (16B).

[pran]

billw55, on 2013-August-09, 06:46, said:

I guess there is no rule against detaching cards, but I do think it is a bad habit, and that it could possibly be UI - suggesting that you have a close alternative lead. I try to avoid it.

So he was unable to find

Law 74B3 said:

{As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:}
detaching a card before it is his turn to play.

???

OK, I overlooked Gnasher writing: at my turn in his post, sorry.

[barmar]

I think this could fall under:

Quote

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

and/or

Quote

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.

Neither of these say specifically that you may not detach a card and then change it, but they suggest that it's poor form, and could suggest UI. As someone said, it's a bad habit.

It's the same reason you should avoid starting to pull a card from the bidding box, and then changing it. It's best to do your thinking with your head, not your hand.

Maybe bridge should institute a touch rule like chess.

[Phil]

A SECOND director yesterday took both by partner and I away from the table in the fast pairs when one of our opponents incorrectly explained a bid and gave us a chance to correct it

Side Note: directors actually handed out a lot of time penalties for a change. WD.