[jillybean]

Playing in a sectional here yesterday, my pard opened 1st seat;

1♣ (1♦) 1♥ (P)
2♣ (2♦) P **
3♣ (3♦)

** lho reached out, put her hand on the bidding box and paused, mouthing point counting before pulling the pass card.

I called the director after the 3♦ bid, opps say lho didn’t hesitate at all, my pard didn’t see anything, so we are told to continue. (I think the directors decision here was spot on) I pass, my partner bids 4♣-2.


After the hand rho says ‘oh lho recounts her points all the time’ you weren’t damaged, we had 5♦

I don’t think for one moment lho was doing this deliberately, I think its more of a habit but surely carries UI, since without points she wouldn’t pause and be mouthing any counting.

How would other TD’s handle this? If we were damaged what happens when its your word against mine?

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Sep 7 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

How would other TD’s handle this? If we were damaged what happens when its your word against mine?

If I were TDing, I would gently tell your LHO that she should be careful not to mouth her points. I would gently remind RHO that *any* information he or she gleans from mannerisms of his or her partner are unauthorized information.

As far as the "your word against mine" it's a judgment call. TDs have to make them often enough. You collect the facts and try to be as fair as possible. You should also consult another TD if possible.

[blackshoe]

Echo has it right, pretty much. Did you mention the "mouthing point count" bit to the TD? If so, RHO should have told the TD she was aware of this habit, or at least not have acted as if or stated that it didn't happen (I'm not saying RHO did either of those things, btw — I wasn't there, and you didn't say ).

Under the new laws, when a BIT or other conveyance of UI may have occurred, you should reserve your right to call the director, and if the opponents disagree that UI may have been conveyed, they should call the director immediately.

Generally, when 2 players say one thing, one player says another, and the fourth "didn't notice", the TD rules as per the 2 players. OTOH, in a UI case, particularly for a BIT, it is IMO highly likely that the two members of the putative OS are going to say it didn't happen, whatever the actual case, and I would take that into account when ruling.

If there was no BIT, then no UI was conveyed by that, but it seems LHO has a habit of "mouthing" her points, and that RHO is aware of it (and in this case, presumably noticed it). That conveys UI, BIT or no BIT, and so RHO is contrained even when the TD decides there was no BIT.

As to damage, what would have happened if RHO had not bid 3♦? It looks to me that the "we have 5♦" comment was "resulting", and that during the bidding RHO was not aware of this, else she might have bid 5♦ over 4♣. So I would think the "mouthing" suggests values, which suggests bidding over 3♣, which is what RHO did. Since it seems likely 3♣ would have been passed out, I might rule there was UI, it was used, and there was damage, and adjust the score to 3♣ down 1 (or possibly even making). All that is speculation though, without seeing the hands and consulting.

[jillybean]

Ok, theres more to the story than I initially told, I took an unorthodox method when I called the TD. After a previous TD call had turned nasty and having seen someone else do this, I decided to talk to the TD in private first. I explained about the hand on bid box while mouthing the point count. Maybe this worked against me, when the TD talked to the table he said ‘so there may have been a hesitation here’ (or words to that effect), which the opps denied. My partner went on to bid 4♣ holding ♠xxx, KTx, xx, AKQxx so I thought any damage was our own doing and pointless to call the TD back.

RHO held Axx,void,AKQTxxx,Txx and IMO clear that they would have taken another bid without UI.

Had RHO not held this hand then is it my role to call the TD back and ask for another review?

[TimG]

jillybean2, on Sep 8 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

Ok, theres more to the story than I initially told, I took an unorthodox method when I called the TD. After a previous TD call had turned nasty and having seen someone else do this, I decided to talk to the TD in private first.

Did you call the director to the table and then speak to him away from the table, or did you talk to the director between rounds?

It seems to me that in an ideal world, you could wait until after the round and then tell the director: "I noticed an opponent who was mouthing numbers as she counted her points; I don't mean to make an accusations, but wonder if you might watch and see if it is a habit and speak to her if you notice something." The director would then handle it in a tactful manner and your involvement would end.

But, the reality is that you will not remain anonymous in such a situation and the player who is spoken to almost invariably feels like you have gone behind her back to tattle on her. So, I think the best course, if you decide to do anything, is to call the director to the table and tell him of your concerns in front of all involved. Things are less likely to turn nasty when there is no perception of behind the back activity.

In answer to your question about whether it is your job to call the director back if you think there has been damage, I believe the answer is "yes".

[jillybean]

TimG, on Sep 8 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

Did you call the director to the table and then speak to him away from the table, or did you talk to the director between rounds?

I called the TD to the table then talked to him away from the table.

But I should have

blackshoe said:

Under the new laws, when a BIT or other conveyance of UI may have occurred, you should reserve your right to call the director, and if the opponents disagree that UI may have been conveyed, they should call the director immediately.

If the opps disagree that there may have been UI and dont call the TD, then I should call the TD immediately?

[TimG]

jillybean2, on Sep 8 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

If the opps disagree that there may have been UI and dont call the TD, then I should call the TD immediately?

I would suggest you say something like "Let's call the director and let him sort it out." And then call the director.

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Sep 8 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

If the opps disagree that there may have been UI and dont call the TD, then I should call the TD immediately?

Yes. If there is a dispute of facts, then call the TD.

By the way, I think the whole issue of BIT is a red herring. I don't really see anything in the original post or subsequent follow up that a BIT was ever at issue. The issue is the more general one of unauthorized information. A BIT is just an example of UI. However, any gestures or mannerisms can also consitute UI.

A simple example is that I say "I have 7 points, I better pass," and then pass in tempo. No BIT, but obviously UI.

So why should the TD rule on a BIT? It just happens that BITs are the most common form of UI, but certainly not the only form. That being the case, I would personally recommend calling the TD over regardless. You are not try to establish whether there was a BIT, but rather was there UI.

[blackshoe]

Echo is right. The question here is not really whether there was a BIT, but whether mouthing one's points conveys UI. Law 16B2 applies in either case, of course. The point to that law is to allow the TD to establish the facts (see Law 85) at the time of the alleged conveyance of UI. If the putative OS do not call the TD, the NOS should call him, in order to ensure the facts get established when they should be.

When you call the TD, report the facts as you see them. In this case "LHO was slow to call here, and while pausing, with her hand on the bidding box, audibly mouthed her point count". If you give all the facts as you see them, the TD will sort out any dispute. If you leave anything out, the TD will be hard pressed to rule on it.

I have had it happen (as a player) where both sides agreed that a BIT had occurred, but later, when the TD was called because UI seemed to have been used, the other side denied that there had been a BIT, and denied that they had agreed to it. A thorny problem for the TD.

Whether the player might have taken another bid absent UI is not relevant. The question is, what did the UI suggest, was there an LA to that, and did the player choose the suggested action. If he did, and damage ensued, then the score should be adjusted. "I was always going to..." is not a defense.

If, after you and the TD returned to the table, he did not mention the mouthing bit, then you should have reminded him.

[jillybean]

Thanks all. I didnt handle this very well, maybe next time I will.