BBO Discussion Forums: What would you have done? - BBO Discussion Forums

Recently, I've been trying to maintain a constant tempo of about four seconds in the bidding, except over skip bids, where it's ten seconds. Yesterday, playing with a very novice partner who is not a native English speaker, although he's been in this country nearly forty years, I took more like three seconds to respond to one of partner's bids (uncontested auction). Nothing was said at the time of my bid, but when my partner subsequently bid, my wise-ass RHO asked him "did you base your bid on your partner's hesitation?" Partner answered as he always does to such leading questions: he said "yes". RHO then asked me "does he understand what I'm asking him?" "No," I said, "he doesn't have a clue." RHO called the TD. The TD very clumsily tried to explain the problem to my partner, in the course of which he came to understand that he was being accused of cheating. He exploded. The TD got him calmed down, said "play it out, call me back at the end if you feel you were damaged" and left.

How would you have handled it?

The TD, when called, handled the wrong thing. If given the full exchange which had occurred, he could have advised your RHO that the question to the one who had just made the bid was improper. Then, he would tell the players to proceed.

If your opponents, at the end of the hand, believe there was UI and that your partner has taken advantage of it, they can call for a ruling at that time.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-25, 09:56, said:

The TD was given that information, verbatim, by me, after RHO "explained" that my partner had bid in the face of my "hesitation". I also pointed out that there was no attempt to establish agreement as to the alleged hesitation at the time I supposedly hesitated.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-25, 16:00, said:

So, my post stands as to what the TD could have done; except now it is what the TD should have done.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-25, 09:56, said:

I would consider a PP for RHO's question, which was a clear breach of 74A2, but your partner should not "explode" either, but just call the TD.

lamford, on 2012-September-26, 10:24, said:

Absolutely. My point was entirely about the TD's first call to the table. Later, he/she has work to do. The job at hand was to calm things down and get on with the board.

lamford, on 2012-September-26, 10:24, said:

Was I unclear? The TD was already at the table when partner "exploded". In fact, it was the TD who caused the explosion.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 10:50, said:

My misread. In which case your partner should not explode, regardless of the choice of words of the TD. It sounds like the TD handled it quite well, apart from the poor expression.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 10:50, said:

You were not unclear.

Of course he "should not" explode. But how many people, faced with what appears to them to be a clear accusation of cheating, would not, especially when they are so clueless that it took the director several minutes to get the message across?

IMO, the director handled this incident, as a whole, very poorly, however well she handled calming my partner down after she lit his fuse.

Lots of talk in this thread, very little answer to the question posed.

I would have called the director when your opponent asked the question.

I'd complain to somebody - whoever there is to complain to - about the director's failure to deal with the opponent's obnoxious behaviour.

Given the number of incidents you've told us about that involve unpleasant people behaving unlawfully, I'd be looking for another bridge club. Or are they all equally bad?

gnasher, on 2012-September-26, 17:04, said:

I meant "what would you have done as the director?"

We have an afternoon game at one or another club in the area every weekday, two on Wednesday, and two evening games. With the exception of one of the Wednesday games which is supposedly a "299er" invitational game*, it's mostly the same people at each game. So yeah, they're about equally bad.

*This game began, years ago, as a "49er" invitational game, that is, it was limited to people with less than 50 ACBL masterpoints. When some of the players there gained more than 50 MPs, the owner changed the game to a "199er", and then a "299er" invitational game. The game is still listed as "invitational" but I don't know the details of the sanction, which is no longer held, according to the ACBL website, by the original owner, although that person still directs it. I do know that about half a dozen life masters, including one with over 1000 masterpoints, still play at that game. I also know that several people who don't play in it, and many of those who do, think these life masters don't belong in this particular fish barrel. And yet there they are. One of them gave as her reason for continuing to play there "I win more often".

Recently the local bridge organization, RABA (Rochester Area Bridge Association, a subset in some sense of ACBL Unit 112) has produced posters about a "policy" similar to the ACBL's "Zero Tolerance" policy — or maybe it's intended as a local implementation of the ACBL policy. Anyway, the posters are there, but I have yet to see or hear of any rulings made under it.

Out of curiosity, how often does "a constant tempo of about four seconds in the bidding" result in an opponent thinking there was a hesitation?

Bbradley62, on 2012-September-26, 18:27, said:

Good question for him ---the "constant" part. IMO, 4 seconds is a long time in routine early auctions; but we don't have a pause period designated at all. There might be a matter of us knowing we have a four-second tempo constantly, but the opponents not knowing our choice is that long.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-26, 18:32, said:

Unfortunately, in 2-3 boards each opponent may not see enough of a pattern to conclude "constant" before concluding "hesitation".

I don't think 4 seconds would be considered a hesitation/BIT by many, if any.

TimG, on 2012-September-26, 19:02, said:

When someone asks my partner "do you agree there was a hesitation here?" I consider that evidence that he thinks there was a hesitation. Am I wrong?

No, that's not what happened in this case. I'm not talking, in this post, about this case.

As the director, I would:
- Confirm that the question asked was as you describe.
- Explain to your opponent that if he thought an infraction had occurred, he should call he director, announce that he reserved his right to call the director, or wait until the end of the hand and then call the director.
- Explain that his question as phrased was offensive, not justified by the evidence available at the time of the question, and a breach of Laws 74A1, 74A2 and 74B2, and of the ACBL Zero Tolerance Policy.
- If he is anything other than contrite, impose a fine.
- Deal with the UI issue in the normal way.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 21:11, said:

I expect you are right. But, I am still very surprised that anyone thinks 4 seconds is a BIT.

TimG, on 2012-September-27, 07:45, said:

I don't. Not if it's board 1 of the round and the auction went 1♠-p-4 seconds 3♠, or 4 seconds 2♦, or (1NT)- 4 seconds P (especially by people who know how WeaSeL vs NT works). I've had several people ask "do you agree there was a hesitation" after 1♠-p-3♠-10 seconds P. My partner's answer is usually "no" if they sound offensive with their question, and "no, that's normal for him after any skip bid" if they are just trying to ensure that both sides have the same idea about the auction for later.

4 seconds on the first round of the auction is a *long* time, for most ACBL games.