[Hanoi5]

I remember a player taking a lot of time to pass on a competitive auction where his opponents had reached game and then telling his partner she couldn't bid because he had taken a lot of time and passed. I think you cannot judge a player from one isolated case but if the player is known to behave in this manner then he's very close to being guilty.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-19, 12:01, said:

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As TD, I would be asking the hesitator what he was thinking about. Also, in making a ruling, the TD must be able to point to an infraction of law, and if you're going to penalize (i.e., issue a procedural penalty for) this hesitation, you're coming awfully close to flat out saying "you're cheating", so you better be damn sure of your evidence.

There's no need for either a procedural penalty or an accusation. We simply rule that the hesitator failed to be particularly careful in a situation when a tempo variation might work to the benefit of his side, that an innocent player (his partner) has drawn a false inference from the pause (namely that he had a good hand), that he had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and that he could have known, at the time of the pause, that the pause could work to his benefit. Then we adjust the score to -670.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2011-November-20, 09:05, said:

I've posted on this before: I think some people confuse 'close' with 'clear'. I have often sugested that I find a choice to be close but clear and I agree with your view on this reopening double....it is, imo, close but clear.

I agree with u but i did not confuse the clear and close for this south in this topic.

For example you said in your previous post that this hand is an opener for most members in forums. I agree. But does this make not opening an 11 hcp balanced hand a non logical alternative ?

This alone is kind of proof that this south does not see this hand as you and i do. Under this condition i thought dbl or pass was a close call for him. Perhaps not for you and me. Why do we assume that he suddenly saw the light in his hand and will act different at 3 level ? Why is it so clear for this specific south ?

[JLOGIC]

I would not open this hand in a standard system and would be surprised if that was a more common treatment than passing. Thinking of the top american pairs who play natural, I'd be really surprised if any of levin/weinstein fred/brad zia/bob chip/lew would open this hand. I don't see why it is inconsistent to pass and then balance with a double. You have a maximum passed hand with no diamond honor, support or all suits, good quick tricks, etc. It's not like partner will go overboard when we're a passed hand.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2011-November-20, 19:07, said:

I agree with u but i did not confuse the clear and close for this south in this topic.

For example you said in your previous post that this hand is an opener for most members in forums. I agree. But does this make not opening an 11 hcp balanced hand a non logical alternative ?

This alone is kind of proof that this south does not see this hand as you and i do. Under this condition i thought dbl or pass was a close call for him. Perhaps not for you and me. Why do we assume that he suddenly saw the light in his hand and will act different at 3 level ? Why is it so clear for this specific south ?

I said 'many', not most. I wouldn't open it unless it fit my notrump range.

[mycroft]

A few comments from being ATT/AFK (at the table/away from keybeard) this weekend:

"reasonably dispassionate" - I agree with you. However, that is not dispassionate - and I know that "reasonably dispassionate" me has made "clearly based on UI" calls that I truly thought, at the time, were auto. Of course, when I did work it out, or when they opponents pointed it out and suddenly I had an "aha" moment, I became the prosecuting attorney on the call "this is absolutely influenced by the UI, that is clearly logical, this score has to be adjusted..."

Other times, I truly think it's auto, they ask, I still think it's auto, so we call the TD who can be dispassionate. No problem to me, either way.

--------

The people who are asking partner what was going on, well, I'm in that camp too.

--------

I have thought the opponents were trying to inhibit a balance exactly once - but I knew for a fact that this player tried every improper game he could think of, whenever he could, until he got called on it (and very carefully avoided reading the Lawbook, so he wouldn't "know" what he was doing was unethical). I will admit that a) it was much more likely than random, and b) that I could be biased against him :-).

--------

I also know one or two players who think in really strange places for a player of their calibre. I have to remind myself every time they come to my table to ignore my table feel because it will be wrong. I'm looking forward to the day I have a UI call (more likely, a "no logical reason to think at this point unless he had..." call) at their table; it should be exciting.