[roghog]

East calls you to reserve his rights because North had hesitated during the auction. NS agreed that there had been a noticeable break in tempo.

After a few moments, West calls you back and explains that he had been dummy on the previous hand. He had suddenly realised that he'd totally forgotten a promise to his neighbour: "I'll feed your cat while you're away on holiday. Trust me." As the bidding progressed on the current hand, his mind was racing as he worried about the consequences. He bid mechanically and, in a competitive auction, bid 3♠ which was passed round to South (his RHO) who jumped to 5♦. This was passed out and he started to concentrate again when he observed that he was on lead to the ♦ game. Suddenly his partner reserved their rights because North had hesitated over the 3♠. In his mental turmoil, he'd failed to notice any hesitation. North must have been considering a penalty double of ♠ and although ♠ was West's natural lead, it would be prudent to try something else.

Is West allowed to know that North hesitated?

[nige1]

roghog, on 2013-November-18, 06:34, said:

East calls you to reserve his rights because North had hesitated during the auction. NS agreed that there had been a noticeable break in tempo.
After a few moments, West calls you back and explains that he had been dummy on the previous hand. He had suddenly realised that he'd totally forgotten a promise to his neighbour: "I'll feed your cat while you're away on holiday. Trust me." As the bidding progressed on the current hand, his mind was racing as he worried about the consequences. He bid mechanically and, in a competitive auction, bid 3♠ which was passed round to South (his RHO) who jumped to 5♦. This was passed out and he started to concentrate again when he observed that he was on lead to the ♦ game. Suddenly his partner reserved their rights because North had hesitated over the 3♠. In his mental turmoil, he'd failed to notice any hesitation. North must have been considering a penalty double of ♠ and although ♠ was West's natural lead, it would be prudent to try something else.
Is West allowed to know that North hesitated?

IMO North's hesitation is AI to West but West still deserves a DP for pet cruelty

Edited to correct careless mistake after reading Vampyr's post

This post has been edited by nige1: 2013-November-20, 13:37

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-November-18, 07:25, said:

IMO Norh's hesistation is UI to West...

Why? Because West wouldn't have known about it unless his partner had mentioned it? That is a very interesting idea.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2013-November-18, 07:25, said:

IMO Norh's hesistation is UI to West but West still deserves a DP for pet cruelty

No one should be given a disciplinary penalty for mere forgetfullness.

And, quite frankly, when it comes to a failure to attend to the needs of cats, I don't think that there can possibly be any disciplinary penalties.

[mycroft]

if you forget to feed the cat, and the cat has claws (as it should), that will be DP enough.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-November-18, 07:25, said:

IMO Norh's hesitation is AI to West

Which law?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-18, 12:26, said:

Which law?

I expect Nige thinks its 16A. He probably also read 16B1 which mentions that information coming from your partner's question is UI.

But I disagree. It is information that has arisen from a proper legal process, which therefore is AI unless otherwise stated. Now a hestitation is not an irregularity. But consider instead a situation where an opponent has committed an irregularity which you overlook but your partner properly draws attention to. It is now quite clear that the opponent's irregularity is AI to you, even though you only learned of it because your partner drew attention to it. Likewise your partner is allowed to draw attention to an opponent's hesitation for the purpose of reserving his rights, so I think it is AI to you in the same way as an irregularity your partner may draw attention to.

[blackshoe]

I suppose at this point I should mention that a break in tempo is an irregularity*. It's just not an infraction.

* An irregularity is "a deviation from correct procedure".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-19, 16:22, said:

I suppose at this point I should mention that a break in tempo is an irregularity*. It's just not an infraction.

* An irregularity is "a deviation from correct procedure".

Unless it was deliberate.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-18, 10:25, said:

No one should be given a disciplinary penalty for mere forgetfullness.

I wish my school teachers had followed this advice when I forgot to do my homework. How about if I forget to turn my mobile phone off or even just my UI responsibilities? In some countries the forget could have a real DP should the police get to hear about it.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-November-20, 03:15, said:

Unless it was deliberate.

I tend not to assume people are deliberately cheating. Perhaps that's naive of me (having just read an account — to some extent a rant, really — about the Sion/Cokin incident).

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-20, 06:17, said:

I wish my school teachers had followed this advice when I forgot to do my homework. How about if I forget to turn my mobile phone off or even just my UI responsibilities? In some countries the forget could have a real DP should the police get to hear about it.

The police around here have better things to do than worry about what goes on at a bridge table - unless a fight breaks out or somebody gets killed.

For those who think I have no sense of humor, I know Zel was talking about a director, not a cop.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-20, 07:41, said:

I tend not to assume people are deliberately cheating. Perhaps that's naive of me (having just read an account — to some extent a rant, really — about the Sion/Cokin incident).

Neither do I - never (assume).

(But the possibility still exists that an irregularity was deliberate, and TD must be aware of this.)

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-20, 07:44, said:

For those who think I have no sense of humor, I know Zel was talking about a director, not a cop.

Actually I meant the real police. Some countries take animal mistreatment quite seriously, especially if one dies as a result.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-20, 09:35, said:

Actually I meant the real police. Some countries take animal mistreatment quite seriously, especially if one dies as a result.

Ah, now it makes sense. I was pretty sure you were talking about real police, but with the forgotten cat being so far up the thread, the only interpretation I could see for your post was that some countries took a draconian view on annoying ringtones.

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2013-November-20, 10:24, said:

Ah, now it makes sense. I was pretty sure you were talking about real police, but with the forgotten cat being so far up the thread, the only interpretation I could see for your post was that some countries took a draconian view on annoying ringtones.

Careful, campboy. You now seem to be admitting that you had forgotten the cat, too, and if the authorities take a dim view of one person doing that then they will probably take a dim view of you doing it, as well...

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2013-November-20, 10:24, said:

Ah, now it makes sense. I was pretty sure you were talking about real police, but with the forgotten cat being so far up the thread, the only interpretation I could see for your post was that some countries took a draconian view on annoying ringtones.

Yeah, I took the same confusion in the opposite direction.