The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
A Bridge Blog
Assigning blame since April 20, 2007

Director!

Print the article

This entry was posted on 9/15/2007 11:59 PM and is filed under Assigning Blame.

Here's a new assigning blame category.  Is the director to blame for botching this ruling or am I to blame for complaining about it?

South picks up in 4th all white at IMPs

KT / Q6 / JT742 / T765
 
Lefty passes.  Pard opens 1 Spade.  Righty doubles.  This hand passes.  Lefty bids 3 Hearts.  Pass.  Pass.

Your call?

Oh, I forgot to mention something.

Before your partner passed, he went into the tank for about 2 minutes.  He went into the tank for so long that his partner called the director on him (thinking he had connection problems.)

He then said 'deeply thinking .....'

Now how do you feel about a 3 Spade bid?

I was pretty steamed.  Here's the table conversation preceding the director call and the subsequent conversation I had with the director.  (If you're averse to a little melodrama, probably best to skip this post.)  I haven't edited out any comments at that table, anything that director said to me, or anything I said to that director.

First the preamble, as I return from my lost connection and we wait after Peter's 3 Heart bid and winnietx calls the Director on her partner:

jonottawa: hi all
jonottawa: sorry peter, my router crashed
winnietx: are u there p
winnietx: everyone is having problems
jonottawa: oh really? maybe it's bbo
winnietx: lol
jonottawa: or maybe the Internets are down all those tubes and whatnot
reeve: still ots of time
->jonottawa: Automated message:  Director ACBL_22 has been requested by winnietx
CNchen: p
CNchen: deeply thinking.....
winnietx: oh
reeve: your bid chen
winnietx: that s r eally deep
CNchen: our time is enough.
winnietx: enough for  what
reeve: nancy, lotsa time
CNchen: enough for complish this board.
->jonottawa: Automated message:  Director ACBL_22 is now at the table  as requested by winnietx
CNchen: np
CNchen: np, TD

Now the 3 Spade bid, at which time I immediately clicked on the Call Director button.  The director was still at the table.


->jonottawa: Automated message:  Director ACBL_22 has been requested by jonottawa
CNchen: i just think
jonottawa: hi Director, I now have a problem
reeve: me 2
winnietx: lol
CNchen: opps.
jonottawa: I'd like protection after the break in tempo over 3!h

Now a falsehood the likes of which drives me absolutely bananas:


winnietx: break in  tempo  i thought  my p had  gone to get  a pack of  cigarettes
ACBL_22: please play
jonottawa: and then he said 'deeply thinking'
CNchen: play please, opps.  
ACBL_22: please play

Now, for some reason, CNchen stopped playing on the last trick of the hand:

CNchen: time left 2 minutes.
jonottawa: then play a card
reeve: no claim button
reeve: nancy
winnietx: i am  not playing
winnietx: my p is
winnietx: he  s the one  in no hurry
winnietx: strange round

Just as I push the Call Director button again at the conclusion of the hand:

->jonottawa: Automated message:  Director ACBL_22 has been requested by jonottawa

We are whisked away to a new table.  The subsequent conversation occurred in private messages while I was playing against other folks:

->jonottawa: Automated message:  Director ACBL_22 is now at the table  as requested by jonottawa
jonottawa: I'd like to request an adjusted score on the last hand to whatever 3!h is making
ACBL_22: ill check
->ACBL_22: ty

At least 10 minutes later, I hadn't gotten any feedback from the Director.  Can you imagine that at a real tournament?

->ACBL_22: could you let me know what your ruling is on board 8, please?  south clearly bid due to her partner's break in tempo over 3!h, that is a clear violation of the rules
ACBL_22: not in an unusall auction
->ACBL_22: I'd like to request a committee, this is a clear violation of the rules
->ACBL_22: there was nothing unusual about the auction from south's perspective
->ACBL_22: and I didn't make that gross takeout double, the person subbing for me did, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue of the BIT and UI
ACBL_22: what bd??
->ACBL_22: 8
->ACBL_22: BIT by N after 3!h bid
->ACBL_22: then the comment 'deeply thinking'
->ACBL_22: to emphasize that it was indeed a BIT
ACBL_22: he was a sub also and not a regular partner
->ACBL_22: that doesn't allow his partner to take an inference from his BIT and his comment 'deeply thinking'
->ACBL_22: I'm dropping a line to Mike Flader, just to recap there was a break in tempo, the person who made the break in tempo made the comment 'deeply thinking', his partner took a bizarre ...
->ACBL_22: action based on the break in tempo, you refused to roll the result back, you refused to let me have a committee, is that about right? thx
ACBL_22 (Lobby): that is not right but if you feel you were damaged ok
ACBL_22 (Lobby): i checked the bd and tou were not damaged  it was not a regular partnership
->ACBL_22: we lost 4 IMPs on the board, we would have done better in 3!h which is the correct ruling
->ACBL_22: and again, you can't draw inferences from partner's break in tempo whether you've played together once or a million times, I can't believe you're not aware of that
->ACBL_22: anyway, I don't want to argue, thx for your opinion
ACBL_22 (Lobby):
->ACBL_22: is Barbara-ACBL 22 the best way to identify you?
ACBL_22: ACBL_22 is all that is necessary
->ACBL_22: and which part of the fact pattern were you disagreeing with? just the damage part?
->ACBL_22: you acknowledge that you were called promptly, that the facts were explained to you (including the comment 'deeply thinking') and that South's bid seemed clearly influenced by the ...
->ACBL_22: break in tempo

I got no further response from ACBL_22.

If you're wondering, the ruling had no effect on our overall rank or masterpoint award.  If you think that's important, you're reading the wrong blog.

One other point is the question of 'Did we defend so egregiously that we broke the link between the infraction and the damage?'

I had to lead from:

7654 / KT32 / Q8 / AJ4
 
Righty opened 1 Spade.  This hand doubled.  Pard bid 3 Hearts.  Lefty bid 3 Spades.
 
Yes, double is sick.  I wouldn't double with this in a million years, but my router failed at an inopportune moment (normally it's very reliable) and a sub made the initial double.  I don't think that's relevant, but if you do please state your reasoning.
 
Anyway, the only lead to beat the hand legitimately is the Ace of Clubs.  I don't think a Heart lead breaks the link.
 
Later, Peter tried for a Diamond ruff from Kx, which seems to be our only shot if I don't have Spade length.  So his defense was rational as well.

The hand is here.  Comments welcome.

 
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 10/18/2007 8:05 AM Wayne wrote:
      In plain English, on the hand you posted, you were screwed

      As you know, I haven't played any serious bridge in about 7 years. I had a lot of reasons for stepping out of the game, but one of the factors that had the most influence on my decision was BIT. It had gotten to the point that it seemed all but impossible to get through a session without some sort of BIT confrontation.
      Players routinely lie about tempo breaks and directors often don't know enough about bridge to fully understand the reasoning behind the director call. In fact, several directors told me personnally that they did not want to be called to the table for BIT issues. They knew who the offenders were, but felt the whole thing detracted from everyone's enjoyment of the game. I suggested that the BIT detracted from MY enjoyment of the game and the ACBL should get serious about educating players about it. Also, many club directors will not punish the offender since the offender is a paying customer.
      There are ways to help with BIT that would require some education and co-operation from the players. Suppose everyone waited 10 seconds before making all bids. There would still be longer BIT's but there would be a lot fewer of the "hitch" type things that go on all of the time and become almost systemic add-ons for the sleazier partnerships.
      I was very active in committee work at tournaments and most of the committees were BIT related. As a committee member, I was usually very hard on the offenders, but I assure you, that no matter the outcome of the committee, there was always at least 2 people angry with the committee members.
      Here is a hand I remembere all too well.
      RHO bid 1NT, LHO bid 2H transfer, RHO took about 20 seconds to bid 2S. LHO bid 4S with a weakish 5 card suit and a 5-3-3-2 9 count. Anyways, you know me well enough to know that I don't suffer in silence at the bridge table. I said:" I guess you don't need to play super-accepts with this system" LHO called the director on me and asked to have me brought up on conduct charges. I asked for a director ruling for the BIT and was told that "everyone would bid a game with LHO's hand". I suggested that "everyone" I knew would bid at most 2NT with LHO's hand and the BIT had to guarantee S support. The director told me I could appeal his ruling. Not only did I lose the committee, I was told off by the committee for the "super accept" crack.
      Reply to this
    • 10/18/2007 11:57 AM Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
      I'd probably quit tournament bridge if they ever made you wait 10 seconds at every call.

      A good way to protect yourself is to immediately ask (as David did on one occasion last night) 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?' That way you get less director calls and also put the opponents on warning that if they do draw an inappropriate inference they're not going to benefit from it.

      The hand you mentioned would indeed be frustrating (LHO is obviously a slimy weasel, or a novice.) But there was no damage done (I assume the NT opener was always bidding 4 Spades over 2NT, right?) There was no need for a committee. As far as a C&E committee, it's hard for you to claim the moral high ground once you made the snide (albeit accurate) remark. I'd have let it go and waited for another opportunity (when I'd done nothing that anyone could find fault with) to try to 'educate' my unethical opponents in a committee.

      EDIT: You didn't mention if they were playing Texas transfers.  If they were, and the NT opener had a max with 4 pieces, they belonged in 6 Spades (since this is a slam try.)  That's where I would have directed the committee's attention.  Actually, I guess if the 4 Spade bidder didn't tank, you can't force a 6 Spade contract since there's no UI from LHO to RHO (just the other way.)
      Reply to this
      1. 10/18/2007 1:41 PM Wayne wrote:
        I won't name names here, but sometime on BBO I will let you know who they were.
        Reply to this
    • 10/18/2007 1:43 PM Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
      I'd actually rather know who was on the committee (if they really didn't at least caution LHO about what is a clear infraction, damage or no, they have no business serving on another committee.)
      Reply to this
    • 5/13/2008 2:49 PM nwikqqpj wrote:
      fcdplsrb http://saitalkg.com vbwdubds jxcmbxea
      Reply to this
    • 5/16/2008 7:15 AM padsqfnb wrote:
      wudqafmc http://zwghuhye.com hugxwlly boepdivv [URL=http://pzeiomak.com]hrbhamhf[/URL] hoobkqdi">http://ocylgfqw.com">hoobkqdi
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright 2007. http://jonathanferguson.com. All rights reserved.