[FrancesHinden]

---

South and East are screenmates (sorry I know that's not normal, the hand has been rotated).
EW play strong NT, 4-card majors. Before the second double, East explains his raise to South has virtually promising 4 card support, and (when asked) says that the 3H bid is pre-emptive i.e. not a game try.

East calls the TD at the end of the auction (he objects on his side of the screen immediately after the second double).

East says:
- there was an obvious hesitation on the other side of the screen before the tray came back with 3H, and it was obviously going to be from North
- South can't possibly double again here when he only has a 9-count

South says:
- I did not notice a big hesitation; the tray was not quick but it was within the range of normal tempo (15-20 seconds) for play with screens
- I am a passed hand so partner won't expect much more in the way of high cards; I have two aces and the perfect shape to double; partner is marked with high cards as LHO has made a pre-emptive bid and RHO a minimum raise
- We don't play double of 3H as penalties, so there's unlikely to be anything for partner to think about

North says (when asked):
- I didn't pass 3H smoothly - I asked if 3H was a game try or not as I was thinking of bidding 4C, but it wasn't a huge hesitation

West wasn't asked.

3Hx went off. How do you rule?

[CSGibson]

I would rule table result stands.

South's explanation makes perfect sense to me - he has both the offensive potential of a void and two sure defensive tricks in the aces. While I might not allow a 2nd double without screens, with screens it cannot be obvious who has slowed the auction down - maybe W was thinking about making a game try instead of an obstructive raise, maybe N was contemplating action, maybe they were just getting the explanations of the bidding written down with both making their obvious bids afterwards.

[wank]

whilst it's often possible to tell who was thinking on the other side of the screen from noise etc, there's no indication of such here and either player could reasonably be expected to think here so no obvious hesitation: result stands without needing to consider anything else.

[mrdct]

It looks to me like the break-in-tempo is not an agreed fact so the TD needs to resolve that issue first taking account of local regulations for screens which often stipulate that there's presumed to be no BIT if the tray comes back within x seconds. In the EBU that figure is 20 seconds and the EBU also has "hot seat" provisions which may come into play here. It's a point in favour of East-West that attention was first drawn to the BIT by East and North also seems to have admitted that his pass was out of tempo as he'd queried 3♥ and contemplated bidding 4♣, but I think south's second double is sufficiently clear-cut that pass wouldn't be a logical alternative even if the BIT had been a minute.

[paulg]

It was not an EBU competition but the regulations in force state:

Drawing attention to a variation in tempo
When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screen-mate, however, shall not do so.

If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened.

Failure to call the Director thus may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. A delay in passing the tray of up to 20 seconds is not regarded as significant

"Hot seat" actions
In the case of a player confronted with a wholly unanticipated situation or a high-level pre-empt a hesitation may be found not to suggest one action over another if the extra time taken may be occasioned by the need of the player to consider what options he has, added to any time he may then take in choosing among them.

[mycroft]

I hate this part of the screen regulations, because it *isn't* followed. If there are questions, or extra writing or whatever, it could take 15 seconds with a 2 or 3-second think, and since that would be common with "weird" auctions, we call it "normal" tempo. And then the tray bounces back and forth 5, 6 seconds at a time all day until this happens.

Having said that, I can't imagine any other auction. West is pushing N-S around, trying to stop 110, and South has a "perfect" hand for a passed hand. Sure West could be stronger, (there are a lot of hands that won't make a game try opposite a simple raise) and really should have at least a fifth heart, but apart from that part of South's argument, I can't see anybody saying anything else. Defending 3H "strictly competitive" undoubled almost *can't* be our best score.

While I don't consider this meeting the "hot seat" requirements set above (competitive re-raises in this auction surely aren't "wholly unanticipated"), it doesn't look from the explanation that we're not in "significant" territory, especially given that it's obvious that West is going to have to explain her call.

So, all roads lead to my decision being "table result stands".

[ahydra]

If we believe South, "result stands" seems sensible to me. Why not ask West how long it took him and North to make their calls and return the tray?

ahydra

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2012-March-07, 11:40, said:

I hate this part of the screen regulations, because it *isn't* followed.

But presumably you hate it only in abstract, since at your table it *is* followed?

[mycroft]

gnasher, on 2012-March-08, 06:54, said:

But presumably you hate it only in abstract, since at your table it *is* followed?

Well, on my side of the table it is, the few times I've played with screens. There's another side of the screen though...

[aguahombre]

Is it true of EBU regs or elsewhere, that the "hot seat" wording does not address time expected for written questions and answers ---such as alluded to by Mycroft? It seems relevant to the two on the other side of the screen and the timing of their duty to call the TD in certain cases.

[mrdct]

ahydra, on 2012-March-08, 05:49, said:

Why not ask West how long it took him and North to make their calls and return the tray?

I think what happened on the other side of the screen is irrelvant. All that matters is whether or not on the South-East side of the screen a BIT was noticed and, under the prevailing regulations, whether or not it was >20 seconds. Although, the regulations here only say that such a BIT is not considered "significant" which isn't the same thing as saying such a BIT is to be ignored. I've seen a number of rulings and appeals for BIT situations with screens where "insignificant" BITs have still been treated as UI.

Another factor here is that from the perspective of the South-East side of the screen, it may well have been West in the tank over whether to bid the obstructionist 3♥, make some sort of game try or jump to 4♥ even. Accordingly, South oculd quite easily argue that he wasn't in possession of any UI.

[mycroft]

mrdct, on 2012-March-08, 17:17, said:

All that matters is whether or not on the South-East side of the screen a BIT was noticed and, under the prevailing regulations, whether or not the total time taken was >20 seconds.

MrDct and we all know this, just making it clear for posterity. The BIT time is "time over (or under) normal tempo", not the total time taken. If that is not adhered to strictly, we get arguments about whether a 5-second "BIT" is actually a "BIT" in this auction - if it's 5 seconds to make the call, maybe not; if it's 5 seconds longer than normal tempo, almost certainly it is.