Help
This is a thought experiment. Screens in use. W is dealer, NE screenmates.
1♥-3♠-p-p
p
The tray came back late. Usually the preemptor doesn't take up much time, so W thought he was ethically constrained to pass because it was a LA. Actually East passed quite quickly and it was N who thought a lot. EW call for the director saying that N took too much time over a trivial decision and damaged them (the field was in 2♠x-2 or 3♠x-3). N says he was thinking whether he should bid 2, 3 or 4♠.
Page 1 of 1
is there a law against this?
#1
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2012-March-25, 15:20
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,207
- Joined: 2009-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2012-March-25, 15:45
There is only an infraction if North had no bridge reason for the break in tempo. It would be hard to establish that here, especially if 3♠ was not always the choice at other tables.
The laws don't deal very well with issues involving screens. It's not even entirely clear to me whether the amount of time the tray spends on the other side is UI or AI.
The laws don't deal very well with issues involving screens. It's not even entirely clear to me whether the amount of time the tray spends on the other side is UI or AI.
#3
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-March-25, 16:57
Appeal 22 from Lille in 1998 was about a similar situation
It's not quite the same, because this was about a deliberately introduced delay. However, it does demonstrate the principle that if a pause by North makes West think that he has UI, EW may be entitled to redress.
It's not quite the same, because this was about a deliberately introduced delay. However, it does demonstrate the principle that if a pause by North makes West think that he has UI, EW may be entitled to redress.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,165
- Joined: 2009-July-15
Posted 2012-March-26, 01:56
After an auction like that, I would presume the delay could come from anywhere and not consider myself ethically constrained. Next time someone suggests that you are ethically constrained, quote this case to them.
#5
- Scotland
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,754
- Joined: 2008-August-22
- Gender:Male
- Location:Scotland
Posted 2012-March-26, 06:40
gwnn, on 2012-March-25, 15:20, said:
This is a thought experiment. Screens in use. W is dealer, NE screenmates.
1♥-3♠-p-p
p
The tray came back late. Usually the preemptor doesn't take up much time, so W thought he was ethically constrained to pass because it was a LA. Actually East passed quite quickly and it was N who thought a lot. EW call for the director saying that N took too much time over a trivial decision and damaged them (the field was in 2♠x-2 or 3♠x-3). N says he was thinking whether he should bid 2, 3 or 4♠.
1♥-3♠-p-p
p
The tray came back late. Usually the preemptor doesn't take up much time, so W thought he was ethically constrained to pass because it was a LA. Actually East passed quite quickly and it was N who thought a lot. EW call for the director saying that N took too much time over a trivial decision and damaged them (the field was in 2♠x-2 or 3♠x-3). N says he was thinking whether he should bid 2, 3 or 4♠.
The tray regulations explicitly state that no pause of less than 20 seconds will be considered to cause UI. Which means the tray needs to spend 40 seconds on the other side before you can be sure anyone was `slow' at all. That is a very long time. Did the tray really take longer than forty seconds to come back? Is this a case of people applying non-tray tempo considerations to screens?
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,942
- Joined: 2005-January-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cologne, Germany
- Interests:Sleeping, Eating
Posted 2012-March-26, 06:46
phil_20686, on 2012-March-26, 06:40, said:
Is this a case of people applying non-tray tempo considerations to screens?
gwnn, on 2012-March-25, 15:20, said:
This is a thought experiment.
HTH.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell
-- Bertrand Russell
#7
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2012-March-26, 06:50
phil_20686, on 2012-March-26, 06:40, said:
The tray regulations explicitly state that no pause of less than 20 seconds will be considered to cause UI. Which means the tray needs to spend 40 seconds on the other side before you can be sure anyone was `slow' at all. That is a very long time. Did the tray really take longer than forty seconds to come back? Is this a case of people applying non-tray tempo considerations to screens?
In my thought experiment, yes, it took about 60 seconds. E took about 3 seconds for his pass, and N took about 50 seconds to bid 3♠ and a few more to push back the tray. N tells the director that he doesn't normally spend so much time for making up his mind over the level of his preempt, but he was just doubled into -800 a few rounds ago so he felt he needed to think twice before making another preempt so high. East says N burst into quiet, but evil laughter after pushing the tray, but people on the other side denied hearing this and N unsurprisingly didn't remember this incident.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,448
- Joined: 2003-October-27
- Gender:Male
- Location:Moama, NSW
Posted 2012-March-26, 07:48
phil_20686, on 2012-March-26, 06:40, said:
The tray regulations explicitly state that no pause of less than 20 seconds will be considered to cause UI.
Which regulations would those be?
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,942
- Joined: 2005-January-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cologne, Germany
- Interests:Sleeping, Eating
Posted 2012-March-26, 08:35
mrdct, on 2012-March-26, 07:48, said:
Which regulations would those be?
EBU White Book 151.5.2 or, in other words, not any relevant ones.
I read this as 20 seconds, not 20 seconds per player, by the way.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell
-- Bertrand Russell
#10
- Scotland
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,754
- Joined: 2008-August-22
- Gender:Male
- Location:Scotland
Posted 2012-March-26, 08:55
mgoetze, on 2012-March-26, 08:35, said:
EBU White Book 151.5.2 or, in other words, not any relevant ones.
I read this as 20 seconds, not 20 seconds per player, by the way.
I read this as 20 seconds, not 20 seconds per player, by the way.
Maybe it is total and not per player. But i think there are also words to the effect that the expected tempo can be considerably slower in competitive or complex auctions.
Anyway, there is definitely a law against doing this deliberately: the one about varying ones tempo for the express reason of discomfitting the opponents. 73D?
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
#11
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,420
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2012-March-26, 11:20
Yes, but there is a regulation for screens (in most countries' set of regs) that will allow either player on the screen to delay the tempo to "normal". At which point, we are explicitly not discomfitting the opponents.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,686
- Joined: 2007-August-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Liverpool, UK
- Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables
Posted 2012-March-27, 18:50
phil_20686, on 2012-March-26, 06:40, said:
The tray regulations explicitly state that no pause of less than 20 seconds will be considered to cause UI. Which means the tray needs to spend 40 seconds on the other side before you can be sure anyone was `slow' at all. That is a very long time. Did the tray really take longer than forty seconds to come back? Is this a case of people applying non-tray tempo considerations to screens?
As I understand this, if the tray takes 30 seconds to come back there may be UI passed. It does not need to be 50 seconds.
David Stevenson
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
Page 1 of 1