[jonottawa]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

 

Look, you put up a survey. The survey says that most people either disagree with you or don't care. So you got your answer. Whining about it isn't going to change it.

Quote

We're talking about a break in tempo followed by a pass and have been from the beginning.  That virtually always transmits UI.

Bullshit.

The average call in a competitive auction is always going to be slower by a beginner than a call in a noncompetitive auction. In fact, for 90% of experts a the average call in a competitive auction is going to be slower than in a noncompetitive auction, if only to make sure that the opponent isn't just slow about getting an "alert" out.

Quote

You're about the 4th person who's tried to tear down a straw man by saying that it's silly to call the director for a break in tempo alone.

And you're the first and only person to whine about it. Have you ever considered that there might be a reason for that? Like...maybe it isn't a strawman?

Quote

If you think it's right to call the director when UI is transmitted, but wrong to call the director when an opponent breaks tempo and then passes in a competitive auction, explain yourself.

This person sat down at a table, made an opening bid, and took X seconds for his next call in competition. It doesn't matter whether X is 2 seconds or 15. How could the opponents possibly know whether the player in question always takes that long?

If I bid quickly when only one side is bidding (after the first round of the auction), and if I always take 6-8 seconds to bid in competition, is that a BIT? I suppose. What UI am I passing? That it's a competitive auction? This was the player in question's second call in the auction, and the first call in competition. So the opponent called the director for what? In case sometime in the future the opponent might pass at a different tempo in competition?

Do you have any evidence that this person took any more or less time than they usually do to pass in a competitive auction? No. Did their opponents? No. Did they call the director anyways? Yes. Why?

I'm guessing it's probably for the same reason that you feel the need to quote an entire page of somebody else's work to add a "Me too!" underneath it.

Trying to conceal your ignorance behind rudeness, incoherence and distorting other people's arguments isn't working out, JT.

You disagree that a BIT followed by pass in a competitive auction virtually always transmits UI. You're just flat wrong. If I thought you had an open mind, I'd try to educate you on that point, but it's clear that you don't.

You change your argument from 'don't call when there's a BIT-pass' to 'how do they know what normal tempo for this person is?' Make up your mind.

They know what 'normal tempo' is from years of playing the game and by observing how long that opponent takes with all his other calls that round. Mr. Lim even said that he had extras and took some time to think about the hand. The opponents picked up on that correctly.

I call you for making a straw man argument and you reveal your complete ignorance of the concept. You think that because 4 people made the same straw man argument that you did that makes you right. Stick to the issue that was raised. If I argue that 2+2=4 and you say no, 2+2 doesn't equal 5, you're wasting everyone's time.

The poll results reveal that 75% of the people don't wholeheartedly agree with Rick Beye. That in itself should be enough to get him to clarify his position.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

You disagree that a BIT followed by pass in a competitive auction virtually always transmits UI. You're just flat wrong.

That's just so funny, I'll let it stand by itself.

Why do you post here? Honestly? All you do is declare something as apparently Stated by God, and then randomly insult people who deign to reply. Heck, you don't even bother to read what you're quoting.

But since You have Ordained that this was a BIT situation (which it wasn't) and that it passed UI (which it didn't) why is there a point in arguing with you? God knows it would be beneath you to actually defend your position.

And by the way, do tell me what in this:

Quote

I agree with Rick.

Considerable leeway should be given to players not used to tournaments unless they're obviously coffeehousing. Calling the director for a hesitation that does not obviously imply a direction for his partner to take is usually fruitless anyways, and doing so to a beginning player (regardless of age or length of membership) in my humble opinion is browbeating.

This "protecting yourself" stuff is getting out of hand. Sure, the director is only being fair and equitible etc. etc. And those 120 people who have stopped what they're doing to stare at you getting a lecture just have your best interests at heart, or something.

I'm not saying the opponents did anything wrong, because hey, I don't know that they knew their opponents were beginners, and I haven't heard their side of the story yet. But if they called the director for any reason other than to restore equity, the director isn't going to be real happy with it.


QUOTE  "It seems to me that the ACBL has a choice:  Educate new players about their ethical obligations in a serious way or tell them that the rules don't apply to them because they're less experienced."

They don't. Experienced players are supposed to protect themselves from less experienced players who fail to alert something popular (for example, Bergen Raises, transfers, or Jacoby 2NT). I would not penalize a beginner for asking about a bid out of turn. I also would not penalize a beginning player for messing with his bids before selecting a pass or double, as long as it wasn't obvious which one he was picking. In all cases, I would talk to the player later, when we didn't have 240 eyes staring at us, so that the problem didn't repeat itself.

We don't require that people take a course in duplicate bridge prior to playing in an ACBL tournament. Until we do, we should accept and give some slack to people who follow rubber bridge rules.

was rude or incoherent. You are easily the rudest poster here, and I don't just mean on this thread. And when your rudeness is met with rudeness, you are shocked! shocked! by the response.

So, to sum it up quickly....

Specific Situation: Some bidding situations are more difficult than others. Beginners are likely to take longer with more difficult bidding situations that experts are, for obvious reasons. Therefore, on a difficult auction (such as one in which all four players are bidding), you should not assume a BIT simply because "years of experience" might tell you that other people would be able to bid faster there. You don't know how long these players would have taken to pass if they'd had a weak balanced hand. Nobody knows. That they might bid quickly on a more ordinary auction might make it a BIT, but it does not pass UI.

General Situation: Calling the director on a BIT where you know that the director is going to rule no action was suggested simply creates a hostile environment.

And I am done. Have a nice day.

[jonottawa]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

Quote

You disagree that a BIT followed by pass in a competitive auction virtually always transmits UI. You're just flat wrong.

That's just so funny, I'll let it stand by itself.

Why do you post here? Honestly? All you do is declare something as apparently Stated by God, and then randomly insult people who deign to reply. Heck, you don't even bother to read what you're quoting.

But since You have Ordained that this was a BIT situation (which it wasn't) and that it passed UI (which it didn't) why is there a point in arguing with you? God knows it would be beneath you to actually defend your position.

And by the way, do tell me what in this:

Quote

I agree with Rick.

Considerable leeway should be given to players not used to tournaments unless they're obviously coffeehousing. Calling the director for a hesitation that does not obviously imply a direction for his partner to take is usually fruitless anyways, and doing so to a beginning player (regardless of age or length of membership) in my humble opinion is browbeating.

This "protecting yourself" stuff is getting out of hand. Sure, the director is only being fair and equitible etc. etc. And those 120 people who have stopped what they're doing to stare at you getting a lecture just have your best interests at heart, or something.

I'm not saying the opponents did anything wrong, because hey, I don't know that they knew their opponents were beginners, and I haven't heard their side of the story yet. But if they called the director for any reason other than to restore equity, the director isn't going to be real happy with it.


QUOTE  "It seems to me that the ACBL has a choice:  Educate new players about their ethical obligations in a serious way or tell them that the rules don't apply to them because they're less experienced."

They don't. Experienced players are supposed to protect themselves from less experienced players who fail to alert something popular (for example, Bergen Raises, transfers, or Jacoby 2NT). I would not penalize a beginner for asking about a bid out of turn. I also would not penalize a beginning player for messing with his bids before selecting a pass or double, as long as it wasn't obvious which one he was picking. In all cases, I would talk to the player later, when we didn't have 240 eyes staring at us, so that the problem didn't repeat itself.

We don't require that people take a course in duplicate bridge prior to playing in an ACBL tournament. Until we do, we should accept and give some slack to people who follow rubber bridge rules.

was rude or incoherent. You are easily the rudest poster here, and I don't just mean on this thread. And when your rudeness is met with rudeness, you are shocked! shocked! by the response.

So, to sum it up quickly....

Specific Situation: Some bidding situations are more difficult than others. Beginners are likely to take longer with more difficult bidding situations that experts are, for obvious reasons. Therefore, on a difficult auction (such as one in which all four players are bidding), you should not assume a BIT simply because "years of experience" might tell you that other people would be able to bid faster there. You don't know how long these players would have taken to pass if they'd had a weak balanced hand. Nobody knows. That they might bid quickly on a more ordinary auction might make it a BIT, but it does not pass UI.

General Situation: Calling the director on a BIT where you know that the director is going to rule no action was suggested simply creates a hostile environment.

And I am done. Have a nice day.

Sigh. I should know better than to wrestle with a ...

Where to begin.

First, you dredge up your initial post in this thread, which was neither rude, nor offensive, nor particularly incoherent. Not surprisingly, I didn't object to it.

The conversation in this thread was spirited, but respectful, until someone said:

"No, this is more like complaining to the referee 11 times in a game that the opponents socks are too low. ...

I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't. "

Which is both extremely rude, and grammatically incorrect.

In that same post, that person repeatedly misrepresented the other's arguments, betrayed a near-total ignorance of the issue, and implicitly referred to the other camp as 'assholes.'

I rebuked said individual. He persisted. So I responded in kind (sans profanity.)

Who was that guy, anyway?

[awm]

Nothing Rick Beye said was factually wrong. I think he was trying to be "on this player's side" in order to encourage him to keep playing in tournaments. This may be a good strategy from ACBL HQ. On the other hand, he glosses over some points that would need to be emphasized if the point is to encourage people to understand the laws.

If I were in Rick's place, I would have emphasized:

(1) Thinking about what to bid is not an infraction. In general a player has every right to hesitate if he has a tough decision to make.

(2) The issue is that partner is not allowed to select bids (or plays) based on the hesitation. So there's no problem with taking time for your bid, but partner can't then decide to make some call "because you took a while, so you must have a good hand." If partner takes advantage of the information that you took time to bid (or appears to be taking advantage of it) then the director should adjust the result.

(3) Calling the director is not an accusation of cheating. It's just an attempt to inform the "referee" that something irregular might be about to occur, so he can hang around and see if anything untoward happens. Probably 75% of director calls do not involve the director even being asked to adjust a result. There is certainly no accusation being made here.

(4) In club games, or beginner/intermediate games, it's common to give people some leeway with regard to the laws -- let people take back leads out of turn, don't bother to call director on breaks in tempo, and so forth. This is fine for a social game, but when you are actually playing in major tournaments and trying to get gold points you should expect people to be a bit more competitive and ask the director to make competitive rulings as per the laws.

[jonottawa]

awm, on Nov 6 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

Nothing Rick Beye said was factually wrong. I think he was trying to be "on this player's side" in order to encourage him to keep playing in tournaments. This may be a good strategy from ACBL HQ. On the other hand, he glosses over some points that would need to be emphasized if the point is to encourage people to understand the laws.

If I were in Rick's place, I would have emphasized:

(1) Thinking about what to bid is not an infraction. In general a player has every right to hesitate if he has a tough decision to make.

(2) The issue is that partner is not allowed to select bids (or plays) based on the hesitation. So there's no problem with taking time for your bid, but partner can't then decide to make some call "because you took a while, so you must have a good hand." If partner takes advantage of the information that you took time to bid (or appears to be taking advantage of it) then the director should adjust the result.

(3) Calling the director is not an accusation of cheating. It's just an attempt to inform the "referee" that something irregular might be about to occur, so he can hang around and see if anything untoward happens. Probably 75% of director calls do not involve the director even being asked to adjust a result. There is certainly no accusation being made here.

(4) In club games, or beginner/intermediate games, it's common to give people some leeway with regard to the laws -- let people take back leads out of turn, don't bother to call director on breaks in tempo, and so forth. This is fine for a social game, but when you are actually playing in major tournaments and trying to get gold points you should expect people to be a bit more competitive and ask the director to make competitive rulings as per the laws.

I agree with all of this. That's why I said "he leads this guy to believe" ... "he reinforces the perception" and ..."he implies." I'm not claiming that Rick made any factual misstatements, only that by choosing to emphasize one set of facts over another set, he ended up leaving a very false impression overall.

That's why I gave the option "yes, but he expressed himself poorly." That's probably how I'd vote if I voted in my own polls (I don't.) It's also why I asked for a clarification (and not a correction.)

[jtfanclub]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

I rebuked said individual.

No, you took a reply to somebody other than you, about something other than what you posted, and not about you whatsoever, and, without actually reading the post, decided that it was somehow a personal insult to you.

Brilliant.

A break in tempo is not a rule infraction like going offsides. Whistling offsides every time it occurs is good, because it's an infraction. Calling the director every time there's a break in tempo (regardless of whether there is even any potential damage) is very harmful, disruptive to the game, and should get you banned from ACBL events. Doing so to beginners would make you an asshole. Claiming that the people who feel that the director should not be called for harmless BIT's are like referees allowing one side to break the rules is a rather dire insult. And finally, thinking that it's your job to "teach" beginners by calling the director on them unnecessarily is very wrong and extremely harmful.

I don't know if you agree with the above paragraph or not, but I fail to see how it has anything whatsoever to do with you. When I wanted to discuss your post, I replied directly to you. Mycroft took the positions that I'm refuting in the above paragraph, you didn't. I was replying to him. Which is why I didn't discuss your specific example in it.

But hey, if you want to take it personally, I guess I can't stop you.

[jonottawa]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2007, 11:07 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

I rebuked said individual.

No, you took a reply to somebody other than you, about something other than what you posted, and not about you whatsoever, and, without actually reading the post, decided that it was somehow a personal insult to you.

Brilliant.

A break in tempo is not a rule infraction like going offsides. Whistling offsides every time it occurs is good, because it's an infraction. Calling the director every time there's a break in tempo (regardless of whether there is even any potential damage) is very harmful, disruptive to the game, and should get you banned from ACBL events. Doing so to beginners would make you an asshole. Claiming that the people who feel that the director should not be called for harmless BIT's are like referees allowing one side to break the rules is a rather dire insult. And finally, thinking that it's your job to "teach" beginners by calling the director on them unnecessarily is very wrong and extremely harmful.

I don't know if you agree with the above paragraph or not, but I fail to see how it has anything whatsoever to do with you. When I wanted to discuss your post, I replied directly to you. Mycroft took the positions that I'm refuting in the above paragraph, you didn't. I was replying to him. Which is why I didn't discuss your specific example in it.

But hey, if you want to take it personally, I guess I can't stop you.

"And I am done. Have a nice day."

I thought you were done ... Do you mean anything you say?

Either you agree that your ad hominem attack against mycroft was rude, completely unprovoked, grammatically incorrect, and did nothing whatsoever to advance the discussion or you don't.

I didn't consider it a personal insult against me at all. That's not the point. I voice my opinion when people are needlessly and unfairly attacked or bullied, whether it's the Venice Cup team, or people making suggestions how to improve BBO, or mycroft, or, God forbid, someday even you.

For the umpteenth time ... the issue isn't about BIT alone and never was. It's about a BIT-pass in a competitive auction. Start your own thread if you want to discuss whether a director should be called every time there is any break in tempo. Nobody is arguing that.

I hope you're not under the illusion that I take anything you have to say personally ...

[jtfanclub]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

"And I am done. Have a nice day."

I thought you were done ... Do you mean anything you say?

Sorry, sometimes trolls can get me to respond if they produce enough random insults.

To the rest of the board, I apologize.

[mycroft]

Quote

Quote

Jonathan is right - we don't tell the beginners what the Laws actually say - just "how to play".

And your conclusion is therefore if we punish them enough, they'll learn what the rules actually say? Come on.

Um, how do you get from here to there? That's the problem - we don't educate them at all about their responsibilities, and so when someone calls them on something they've "always done", 2-3 years and 500 monsterpoints later, they flip out. I think that that should be part of early education, on the level of "there's these things called transfer bids..." They know not to revoke, or make insufficient bids, or lead out of turn, right? How did they get that education? By making a mistake and having the TD called. So next we should "just allow" an IB to go back without penalty, or a revoke, because they're "new"? When do they stop being "new"? When they play the first round of the Spingold?

The difference here - and after the first psych is made against them - is that it sounds to them like their ethics are being called into question. Not "they made a mistake", but "they did something wrong". Defusing that is my second goal (after ensuring the game is played according to the Laws, of course).

I wish we could get the education away from the table. But we don't do it, so I have to do my best. They learn what the Laws actually say because I RTFLB to them at the table - sometimes, I ShowTFLB to them. It's not the *best* way, but it happens. And I always start with (mostly to remove the indignation of the callers - those are the ones I want to nail, because they teach "how to call the cops". Funny, the newer players pick that up right quick):

"Bridge is a thinker's game. You are entitled to think. However, when you make it clear that you have a problem, you put your partner under certain obligations. Those are:..."

And continue, almost always, with:

"Now that partner knows her obligations, we'll continue the auction. I am going to assume that she follows them; if there seems to be an issue, please call me."

Or, if they've called with "he hesitated and she bid!" (Oh, the Righteous Indignation!) , the second statement becomes "I'm assuming that she both knows her obligations and has followed them. If, when you see the hand, you think that may not be the case, please call me."

If I get "but she bid!" again - and I do - it's nasty education time. "So, if your partner dealt and thought for two minutes before pulling out 2C, that means you have to pass, right?" There are old bridge players' tales that propagate through the (uneducated in the Laws) 1500 MP players as well.

Quote

Quote

Also, the way the election has been interpreted is that yes, you do have to call the TD when the UI happens (not that anybody does).

Actually, you can call when UI is used or potentially used, as well as when it occurs.

You can, just as you can (old laws - it's explicit in the 2008 ones) point out as dummy that declarer has just turned a trick wrong, even though the letter of the law says it's too late. We're a bit lenient on that, and other things.

But if you choose to not follow the ACBL interpretation, and then call "he hesitated and she bid!", and the opponents don't understand, they're going to be more upset when you call "out of nowhere" - and it really *will* sound like you're impugning their ethics, especially if the TD comes back with "We believe that the UI from the hesitation says 'I've never seen this auction before, and I don't know what to do', there was no damage, score stands". Plus, if they then dispute the hesitation - mostly because they have no idea what you're talking about - then the TD has to work through that fight as well.

You don't *have* to call the TD when an unestablished revoke is corrected. But if you don't, and the defenders don't know that the penalty card has lead restrictions attached as well as "must be played at the first legal opportunity", the TD will rule that it's a penalty card "unless the TD designates otherwise", and because the opponents may have played differently if they had known, he's designating otherwise. "pick it up, lead."

Quote

Law 73D. It's not actually required.

Okay, I was shortcutting. Law 73D says you should, and Law 73C tells you what your partner has to do when you don't.

Quote

Quote

However, calling the TD because an irregularity happened, if it is polite and nonjudgmental, is not only fine, but the right thing to do

Which is fine if there's an irregularity. But a break in tempo is not an irregularity- only passing UI is. When you call about a hesitation which does not pass UI, it is:

A break in tempo passes UI, and in the ACBL - though not in the rest of the world - it is "the combination of the UI and the use thereof that is the irregularity" (which allows for different rulings than in the rest of the world as well). That UI could just be "I have a problem", and the AI that goes along with it is "I bet he's never seen this before."

There are 4 steps in ruling on use of UI from partner. They are, *in order*:
- was UI passed?
- did that UI demonstrably suggest an action or group of actions over another?
- did partner take an action from the above list?
- did partner have an LA that was not in the list demonstrably suggested?

So the TD gets called, things get investigated, we fail out on the second question, we come back and say there was no damage, score stands, we quell any attempts at intimidation - WTP?

Quote

If you can read anything into a BILie taking 10 seconds to figure out what's going on in an auction where all four players bid, good for you. But I can assure you that they'd likely take that extra time regardless, especially if the prior bids were quick.

Yes. But remember this isn't a BILie - or if he is, then I'm ashamed of him, and more in despair with the monsterpoint system than normal. This is someone with ~250 Monsterpoints, playing in A to get gold.

Even if they can't follow suit - not necessarily something that I will discount here - they've been playing for a few *years*. And they haven't found out that partner doesn't get to use your pause-and-bids, even if they don't mean anything? *That's* the kind of total lack of education we're talking about here.

Of course, until you are told about tempo passing UI, you don't notice it (in the opponents, either, where it is AI. Knowing this, and how to use it, makes you a better player). Once you do know about it, you start to notice it. Once you start to notice it, you start knowing what the hesitation means, and *now*, if you're "treated nicely because you're not an expert", the experts are going to get fleeced.

Quote

But people who call the directors on beginners because they took a couple of extra seconds during a competitive auction when no UI was passed should be punished for it.

How do I know no UI was passed? How do I know that these people are real LNs and not very good coffeehousers - if I don't know them, at least, and I see them for two boards? Realize, frankly, that I know several players who are both...

But seriously, people who call the directors "on" anybody should be punished for it.

Also seriously, *all* bridge education should include "When something goes wrong, the director should be called. It's just like a referee in any other sport, except that they can't be watching every table every hand - you have to watch for them. Don't think of it as 'calling the cops', think of it as the referee coming by to make sure everything's level."

Quote

I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't.

Why? Both are infractions (at least in the ACBL they can be considered such). Frequently they are infractions requiring a penalty. Frequently they are not. When they are, rectification should occur. When they are not, no rectification should occur (see the "advantage" rule, if you want to continue the analogy).

As a TD, I find it surprising that you would rather deal with the recriminatory, accusative atmosphere when "he hesitated and she bid" vs "I didn't hesitate" rather than "This gentleman took a long time over his call. I just want to ensure that everyone knows their rights and responsibilities." In addition, it's a lot easier to get agreement on the length of the hesitation in the second situation.

Of course, the last time I got into anything at the table like that (as opposed to being a TD in the middle of it), the gentleman who was offended by "He hesitated and his partner bid" was literally standing on his chair yelling for the Director. And of course I disputed the hesitation, which only made things worse. I didn't even realize what I had done until my partner mentioned that my RHO had jumped the bidding and I had paused for 10 seconds - as I *always* do. So I may be a bit biased.

Michael.

[jtfanclub]

[quote]Um, how do you get from here to there?  That's the problem - we don't educate them at all about their responsibilities, and so when someone calls them on something they've "always done", 2-3 years and 500 monsterpoints later, they flip out.[/quote]

I agree that education would be the way to go. Heck, if they made me Grand Poobah of the ACBL, I'd offer a 1 hour course at most tourneys (which clubs could offer at any time) and make it a requirement of becoming a Life Master. You wanna play rubber bridge and occassionally show up to tourneys, fine, but LM should mean you at least read the darn rules.

Let's not bring revokes into this. There's honest to goodness Irregularities, and those everybody needs to be on an equal footing. Then there's "potential" irregularities, such as playing with the bidding box or slow bidding. I don't think standing on a chair and screaming is the way to solve those (and if a player is beginner enough, that's what it feels like regardless). Ideally, those get handled at the club. Sometimes, you can talk to the person after the hand or the round. But I think even ifyou don't do anything about them, they'll get handled.

For example, I was playing against beginners at a club one time, and I opened 1NT (12-15). After a 20 second hesitation, the next person X's, alerted as the majors. Pass pass director please! and pass. We play it out after the director shows up, and the partner of the Xer turned out to have 8 hcp and 5 hearts. She claimed that she hadn't seen her partner (who had a 4333 20 count) hesitate. The director actually started laughing.

If you get damaged, and I mean real damage (including passing useful info), by all means call the director. If somebody is constantly bidding out of tempo, or playing with their bidding box, I can guarantee you that at some point they'll cause real damage to the extent that nobody could overlook it. You don't have to use cases like the original question where there might, potentially, be damage. If you want somebody to learn a lesson, wait for a black-and-white case.

Of course there are two other possibilities. One is that the person's partner is a saint, in which case you should tell the partner that you understand and appreciate what they're doing, but they need to talk to the problem child. Their partner should be happy to explain how logical alternatives are hampering their style. The other possibility is that even after the director adjusts a board or two, they keep doing it. At which point tolerence just has to drop for that particular player.

[quote]"Bridge is a thinker's game.  You are entitled to think.  However, when you make it clear that you have a problem, you put your partner under certain obligations.  Those are:..."[/quote]

I am sure you do an excellent job with the calls. And I think that's a very good way to start them. And if you're going to get called, you're going to have to educate. But I don't think the question here is what you should do if you get called. It is, if you're the one at the table, if you should make the call.

It is my opinion, and one I hold strongly, that unless there is an obvious bid or hand type indicated by the out of tempo call, leave it alone. If a hesitation might be due to having a strong hand, or might have long clubs, or might have both majors, or might just be because their opponents bid quickly, forget it. As a player, that is. For a beginning player, you're just going to give them grief with no equity. For a more advanced player, they may feel that you're insulting their ethics (since they know the LA issue).

[quote]You can, just as you can (old laws - it's explicit in the 2008 ones) point out as dummy that declarer has just turned a trick wrong, even though the letter of the law says it's too late.  We're a bit lenient on that, and other things.

But if you choose to not follow the ACBL interpretation, and then call "he hesitated and she bid!",[/quote]

I claim that laws 73C and F allow me to call the director for damage from UI even if I don't call the director for the UI itself. What I cannot do according to the rules is agree with the opponents that a BIT occurred and continue.

[quote]But if you choose to not follow the ACBL interpretation, and then call "he hesitated and she bid!", and the opponents don't understand, they're going to be more upset when you call "out of nowhere" - and it really *will* sound like you're impugning their ethics, especially if the TD comes back with "We believe that the UI from the hesitation says 'I've never seen this auction before, and I don't know what to do', there was no damage, score stands".[/quote]

Um, I am impugning their ethics (or their knowledge of the rules), which is why I'd never do it unless I was certain that any competent TD would rule damage occurred.

[quote]Plus, if they then dispute the hesitation - mostly because they have no idea what you're talking about - then the TD has to work through that fight as well.[/quote]

I have never found players to have any difficulty disputing the hesitation even immediately after it happened. Heck, even if I was standing there watching them. I don't think the delay makes things even worse.

[quote]You don't *have* to call the TD when an unestablished revoke is corrected.[/quote]

Ah, but there we have an honest-to-goodness infraction. A better example in my mind is when an opponent revokes, and you know he's revoked, you don't have to say anything. You can wait until the revoke is established and then call the director. Not only can you choose which is better for you, the rules explicitly say it's ethical to do so.

[quote]So the TD gets called, things get investigated, we fail out on the second question, we come back and say there was no damage, score stands, we quell any attempts at intimidation - WTP?[/quote]

I would argue that there's quite a bit of damage. You took up time, which now they'll have to catch up (and being beginning players, they were probably behind to begin with). The beginning players will feel embarrassed and stared at. Some of them will be upset. Some of them won't play well after that. Some of them won't come back.

And that is the problem.

[quote]Even if they can't follow suit - not necessarily something that I will discount here - they've been playing for a few *years*.  And they haven't found out that partner doesn't get to use your pause-and-bids, even if they don't mean anything?  *That's* the kind of total lack of education we're talking about here.[/quote]

I can't dispute that.

[quote]Once you start to notice it, you start knowing what the hesitation means, and *now*, if you're "treated nicely because you're not an expert", the experts are going to get fleeced.[/quote]

But then it becomes obvious, and easily cracked down on.

[quote]How do I know no UI was passed?[/quote]

Well, they could just be outright cheating, of course. Could be rubbing their chest to show hearts and coughing to show clubs, or the like. But if you start calling the director on those sorts of things, then you need to be careful.

But if they're not, then you just ask yourself the four points. If you know the director is going to rule no demonstrable action, then don't call him.

I mean, to make this long post short:
-If you're calling the director for redress, no problem.
-If you're calling the director for 'protection' when you know that there is no protection to be gained, big problem.

[quote]Why? Both are infractions (at least in the ACBL they can be considered such).  Frequently they are infractions requiring a penalty.  Frequently they are not.  When they are, rectification should occur.  When they are not, no rectification should occur (see the "advantage" rule, if you want to continue the analogy).[/quote]

But BIT isn't an infraction. There is no penalty for a BIT, ever. The "don't make a bid implied by UI if there is a logical alternative" isn't a penalty, and isn't intended to be a penalty. UI is everywhere, in everything. If we were to penalize UI, then we would never finish a hand. What is an infraction, and what is punishable, is using UI to determine your call or play, or appearing to do so.

[quote]Of course, the last time I got into anything at the table like that (as opposed to being a TD in the middle of it), the gentleman who was offended by "He hesitated and his partner bid" was literally standing on his chair yelling for the Director.  And of course I disputed the hesitation, which only made things worse.  I didn't even realize what I had done until my partner mentioned that my RHO had jumped the bidding and I had paused for 10 seconds - as I *always* do.  So I may be a bit biased.[/quote]

Now imagine this same guy doing that to beginners and you will hopefully feel sympathy for what Rick Beye was trying to get at.

I don't think the question should be call now vs. call later. It's call only when there's an obvious and demonstrable vs. call whenever there's a BIT. If you do wait for O & D, whether you call right away or later is up to you, but it shouldn't matter. If the partner made the O & D bid, the director will take one look at the UI partner's hand and know if there was a hesitation or not.

If he doesn't bust out laughing first.

-Matthew Huntington

[jonottawa]

Quote

If he doesn't bust out laughing first.

-Matthew Huntington

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

Page 4

No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder. Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

"And I am done. Have a nice day."

I thought you were done ... Do you mean anything you say?

Sorry, sometimes trolls can get me to respond if they produce enough random insults.

To the rest of the board, I apologize.

No need, I'm enjoying this thoroughly.

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2007, 12:23 AM, said:

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

Page 4

What guy? Page number? (never mind found it)

[jikl]

Now I am glad this is in the Water Cooler.

Please add another option to your poll: "The OP is a bored troll"

And now the troll is a masterpoint snob as well, to be truthful that seemed fairly obvious from the original post. Where do you get off deciding someone's right to post on this subject by the number of masterpoints they have?

You are a troll; nothing more and nothing less.

Sean

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

The poll results reveal that 75% of the people don't wholeheartedly agree with Rick Beye.  That in itself should be enough to get him to clarify his position.

This is a dumb position to take.

While 75% may not "wholeheartedly" agree with Rick Beyes expression, some 90+% either agree with it, agree with what he said even if it was worded poorly or really don't think it amounts to anything. Most of us at least have enough sense not to make a mountain out of a molehill, as you are doing.

Only 1 3 other people have actually agreed with your side, so far. That should tell you something.

Edit: I changed the number after re-reading through the thread to correctly reflect that jonottowa did not vote in the poll. One additional vote occured after this post was initially made.

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2007, 12:23 AM, said:

Speaking of busting out laughing ...
No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder.  Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

Why don't you try following your own advice?

[rona_]

jonottawa, on Nov 7 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

Quote

If he doesn't bust out laughing first.

-Matthew Huntington

Speaking of busting out laughing ...

PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.)

Page 4

No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder. Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

More class?

La culture, c'est comme la confiture.............

[uday]

I'm starting to think we need a "flames" discussion area just so we can bang on each other for fun.

Until we set that up, tho, pls recall that while Watercooler is considerably more relaxed about language and potential abuse than the normal boards, it is still moderated and there are lines that we should be reluctant to cross.

[cherdano]

jonottawa, did you really just make fun of someone because of his number of masterpoints????

I have about 30, please point at me and laugh.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Nov 7 2007, 06:16 PM, said:

jonottawa, did you really just make fun of someone because of his number of masterpoints????

I have about 30, please point at me and laugh.

I can beat that. I have zero in ACBL-land, so I guess Jon is about to suffocate from laughter.

Roland

[HeavyDluxe]

sry... Just had to employ the infrequently used IMG tag.