[Bende]

On the level where I play it is common to see quite different tempo in the bidding depending on what the bids mean. I think often it is not done to cheat but some people just find it natural to bid this way. It becomes a problem when the meaning of the bid is not clear but the tempo makes it clear what was inteded. As an example, in a one day weekend imps pairs event a couple of opponents held these hands

---

The 3♦ bid was bid after a quite long think but the 4♥ bid hit the table almost at the same time as the 4♦ bid. I am willing to bet that this pair would not have been sure if 4♥ was natural or a que bid for diamonds. The tempo made it clear. If asked afterwards I am even more convinced that the pair would be flabbergasted that anyone would ever think that the bid could be a que. Obviously it must be natural!

So what can be done? We can of course call the director and perhaps we should have. From previous cases I've seen, I'm guessing director would not have understood the issue either. And besides, it is no fun getting marked as someone who uses obscure laws to gain an advantage against what is common practice.

[mink]

You are right that thinking before 3♦ and bidding 4♥ at once transmits the UI that the last bid is natural. However, assuming normal tempo I would not have imagined that 4♥ might be a control bid, but always assumed that partner wants to play ♥.

Karl

[Bende]

So if West with a different hand had bid a slow 4♦ and EW later argued that since they had found a trump suit, obviously 4♥ was a cue bid, this would surprise you? I would from where I was sitting have been sure a slow 4♥ would be a cue.

[trevahound]

Bende, on 2014-July-19, 04:25, said:

On the level where I play it is common to see quite different tempo in the bidding depending on what the bids mean.

Friend, play in the open events wherever possible. It's not that it never happens in open events, but when it does you won't feel you're doing something "to take advantage" when calling the director.

I've noticed at NABC's that sellers of entries don't ask you what event you'd like to play in, but rather how many masterpoints you have, which they presume dictates what event you'd prefer to enter. I think the top event is nearly always open to anyone who'd like to play, other than Platinum Pairs, and you can't Q for that event if you don't enter the earlier open events. FWIW.

I do agree that using tempo rather than agreements to differentiate meanings is endemic in limited events, and many many club games.

[nige1]

Meaningful hesitations seem to occur at all levels. Even with screens, it's usually possible to infer who is likely to have hesitated. At lower levels, if you call the director, opponents often deny any break in tempo. In an experienced partnership, the significance of partner's hesitation might be clear but the director is usually unable to determine what action is suggested.

Possible remedies include

• Mandatory pause (e.g. 5 secs. mechanically timed) before each call or play. Action must be completed before a further 5 secs.
• Use isolated computers and present the other 3 players actions simultaneously after a random pause.

Rather than ridicule these ideas, please suggest other remedies or reconcile yourself to current problems without complaint.

[blackshoe]

I would hardly call Law 16 "obscure".

[barmar]

trevahound, on 2014-July-19, 10:51, said:

I've noticed at NABC's that sellers of entries don't ask you what event you'd like to play in, but rather how many masterpoints you have, which they presume dictates what event you'd prefer to enter.

There's a different selling desk for each event. The line you're on dictates the event, there's no reason for them to ask.

They need to know how many masterpoints you have so they can put you in the appropriate flight, stratum or bracket.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2014-July-19, 11:40, said:

Meaningful hesitations seem to occur at all levels. Even with screens, it's usually possible to infer who is likely to have hesitated. At lower levels, if you call the director, opponents often deny any break in tempo. In an experienced partnership, the significance of partner's hesitation might be clear but the director is usually unable to determine what action is suggested.

Possible remedies include

• Mandatory pause (e.g. 5 secs. mechanically timed) before each call or play. Action must be completed before a further 5 secs.
• Use isolated computers and present the other 3 players actions simultaneously after a random pause.

Rather than ridicule these ideas, please suggest other remedies or reconcile yourself to current problems without complaint.

It appears that the main problems encountered by Bende are players who don't understand their obligations under the rules, and incompetent directors. The obvious solutions are better education for players and better training for directors. Better wording of the rules would play a useful part in both of these, of course.

And since you mention it, I do indeed find your suggestions ridiculous. Apart from the obvious practical problems, who on earth would want to play under those conditions?

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2014-July-20, 02:52, said:

It appears that the main problems encountered by Bende are players who don't understand their obligations under the rules, and incompetent directors. The obvious solutions are better education for players and better training for directors. Better wording of the rules would play a useful part in both of these, of course.
And since you mention it, I do indeed find your suggestions ridiculous. Apart from the obvious practical problems, who on earth would want to play under those conditions?

Gnasher's criticisms have weight. Only on-line are such radical changes likely to be implemented.

In spite of sporadic pleas for simplification and clarification, the overall trend among rule-makers seems to be towards complexity and sophistication.

Admittedly, neither directors nor players understand the present legal morass but can we withstand much more legal training? Anyway, I fear it might have negligible effect.

We can still try to keep an open mind to suggestions, including Gnasher's.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2014-July-20, 13:17, said:

Gnasher's criticisms have weight. Only on-line are such radical changes likely to be implemented.

People have been asking for online bridge services to implement this for years. We generally don't do it because it seems like it would be too annoying to play like this.

[weejonnie]

the first thing to do is politely to ask your opponents if they would agree that the bid was made after an appreciable pause (avoid the word 'hesitation') or very quickly. Pretty sure they will do that.
Then advise them that you'd like to call the Director.
Call the Director - who will presumably ask you to play the hand out and call him back if you feel there has been any damage.
Hopefully that once they realise that the Director CAN be called on break of tempo they will start appreciating the position.

I don't like to say so but if you don't call the director in these sort of cases (and remind him of 73C) then a) the unethical players have already won.

[blackshoe]

You're throwing Law 16B2 right out the window. I agree that a bald "I reserve my right to call the director later " seems a bit rude, and that asking them whether they agree there was a break in tempo (I would use those words) is better, but I wouldn't go further unless they object - and if I end up calling the director at this point, one of the things I'm going to ask him is "who's supposed to call you when one side asserts UI may have been transmitted, and the other side disagrees?" Hopefully my opponents will actually hear the director's response to this, instead of letting it go in one ear and out the other.

While technically if a pair don't call the TD as Law 16B2 requires when they object to such an assertion, they should get little sympathy later, I would call (as the NOS) myself, because I don't want to get into an ethical morass. I do think a lot of players who should know this law either never learned it, have forgotten it, or willfully ignore it, perhaps because they feel inconvenienced by it. Hence the effort to get the TD to educate them.

The purpose of Law 16B2 is to quickly establish, when possible, that there is agreement that UI may have been transmitted, so that when you call the director later you don't get into a "he said, she said" about whether it actually happened. Although I have (in application of other laws, as it happens) had a player say one thing before the director arrived, and then claim — backed up by his partner — that he never said that, he said something else entirely. So it's certainly possible that might happen in a Law 16 case.

[Cascade]

weejonnie, on 2014-July-21, 14:03, said:

the first thing to do is politely to ask your opponents if they would agree that the bid was made after an appreciable pause (avoid the word 'hesitation') or very quickly. Pretty sure they will do that.
Then advise them that you'd like to call the Director.
Call the Director - who will presumably ask you to play the hand out and call him back if you feel there has been any damage.
Hopefully that once they realise that the Director CAN be called on break of tempo they will start appreciating the position.

I don't like to say so but if you don't call the director in these sort of cases (and remind him of 73C) then a) the unethical players have already won.

You don't need to call the director if the opponents agree. If the opponents do not agree then they should call the director. Call the director later if you think you have been damaged.

[mycroft]

"Anyone at the table, except kibitzers."

[weejonnie]

Cascade, on 2014-July-21, 16:39, said:

You don't need to call the director if the opponents agree. If the opponents do not agree then they should call the director. Call the director later if you think you have been damaged.

True - but you have to raise their awareness - and the only way of doing that is to get an independent person to confirm that what they are doing is wrong.

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2014-July-28, 13:47, said:

True - but you have to raise their awareness - and the only way of doing that is to get an independent person to confirm that what they are doing is wrong.

But they may not have done anything wrong --they may have been genuinely thinking.