[jvage]

---

1. E/W claim "Stop" was used before 5♣, N/S claim they did not see any Stop-card
2. Agreed BIT before X, N/S claim maximum 30 sec, E/W claim it was at least a minute

The lead was a club and 12 tricks was made (as you can see, a heart-lead would beat the slam). Both N/S and E/W are strong players. N/S are semiregular partners, but as far as I know they did not have any relevant agreements.

The match was played privately (early stage of qualification for national teams championship) and a TD was called after play ended. E/W questioned the 5♠ call after Souths hesitation/BIT (they argued that North had to pass after the UI). The TD polled 4 players, all bid 5♠, but one commented that he considered passing. The TD let the score stand (6♠N=) and E/W appealed.

The appeal is finished (I was in the committee), since it will be published on the federation pages and it has created an unexpected amount of discussion on Facebook etc. I think it is OK to also present it here. The AC made some additional polls, but first I present the case as it was given to us. Apart from the facts presented above there were some arguments from both sides along the lines you would expect (I can elaborate a little, but there was no info about systemic agreements etc.). Note that East passed in first hand and then bid 5♣ on his second turn, making this an unusual position.

How would you rule?

John

[gordontd]

The matter of the stop card is irrelevant since it is agreed that the player took far longer than the required pause. On the basis of what you present, it sounds as though Pass probably is not an LA - only one out of four considered it, but I would prefer to get a few more data points.

[edited because I misread the original post]

[jvage]

 gordontd, on 2020-February-18, 02:58, said:

The matter of the stop card is irrelevant since it is agreed that the player took far longer than the required pause. On the basis of what you present, it sounds as though Pass probably is not an LA - only one out of four considered it, but I would prefer to get a few more data points.

[edited because I misread the original post]

Since this would probably not have been a problem otherwise, I can add the result of our first poll. This seemed to confirm the appeallants view that a larger poll would establish that Pass was indeed a LA. In our larger poll almost half the players either passed or considered passing.

Edit: I don't have the exact numbers here, partly because it is not clear if one shold include the AC's own view when we discussed it among ourselves, but lets say it was 4 passes and 6 5 spades of which 1 considered pass and one considered 5 diamonds (out of 10). The split was roughly the same in both groups.

John

[gordontd]

 jvage, on 2020-February-18, 04:38, said:

Since this would probably not have been a problem otherwise, I can add the result of our first poll. This seemed to confirm the appeallants view that a larger poll would establish that Pass was indeed a LA. In our larger poll almost half the players either passed or considered passing.

Edit: I don't have the exact numbers here, partly because it is not clear if one shold include the AC's own view when we discussed it among ourselves, but lets say it was 4 passes and 6 5 spades of which 1 considered pass and one considered 5 diamonds (out of 10). The split was roughly the same in both groups.

John

I have known appeals committees who ignored a TD's poll because they didn't agree with its findings. I think it's fine for an AC to add to a small poll by doing their own polling, but I don't think they should add their own views as polling results because they won't have been asked in equivalent circumstances.

Certainly if your additional poll involved appropriate people asked in the proper way, then that is more than enough to consider pass to be an LA.

[mcphee]

I let the score stand and add 3 imps for stupid appeal.

[chrism]

If a double of the final contract by East would have meant "Don't lead a club", then failing to double looks like an error to me; not serious enough to deny EW redress, however. Either a heart or DA beats the slam.

Based on the larger poll, assigning a score in 5Cx seems appropriate.

[chrism]

Forget that last comment, East is on lead. Next time I need to remember that morning coffee comes before posting.

[msjennifer]

Sir, the stop card means (as far as I know) that LHO is bound by law to take at least 10 seconds before making a pass or any other bid.However ,there is nowhere said that he may not take more than 10 seconds. Actually in my personal opinion North did the right thing by bidding 5S.Many would agree that a long pause and double means S wanted double to stand for penalties.(Certainly it can not be a support double at 5 level or a negative double).He could as well have passed to leave the decision to North.Indeed if the meaning of double is taken as penalty double then it was a UI.if If this is true it can be argued why did S bid 6S or was it in sheer frustration.!
If I was EAST ,I certainly would not have appealed against the directors decision.As also the lead was a poor one in light of the bidding.I know I am seeing all 52 cards but in light of the bidding the lead of HK was marked.(OR that is what I ,personally ,would have led).As a matter of fact if S had passed after undue pause(as was argued by EW) many would say he was passing UI to N that he was uncertain whether to bid 5S/5D and was leaving it to N to decide.

[barmar]

 msjennifer, on 2020-February-18, 08:03, said:

Sir, the stop card means (as far as I know) that LHO is bound by law to take at least 10 seconds before making a pass or any other bid.However ,there is nowhere said that he may not take more than 10 seconds.

If he takes about 10 seconds it's not considered a BIT, but 30-60 seconds is a significant hesitation, and transmits UI to partner, which partner may not take advantage of.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2020-February-18, 10:57, said:

If he takes about 10 seconds it's not considered a BIT, but 30-60 seconds is a significant hesitation, and transmits UI to partner, which partner may not take advantage of.

In this auction do we know what double means, and do we know what the UI from a slow double suggests?

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2020-February-19, 05:45, said:

In this auction do we know what double means, and do we know what the UI from a slow double suggests?

Probably "no" to both questions, but that'a a separate issue from whether the STOP rule mitigates UI from excessive hesitation.

It mitigates UI from a reasonable hesitation (the required 10 seconds) and specifies UI from instant actions.

[blackshoe]

If the rules require a pause in certain circumstances of a certain length, and the player concerned pauses for that length of time, there has been no "hesitation".

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2020-February-19, 05:45, said:

In this auction do we know what double means, and do we know what the UI from a slow double suggests?

Double covers a range of hands with extras and no sensible bid. A slow double demonstrably suggests that you hope partner can bid something. I think bidding on is demonstrably suggested by the UI, and I think Pass is an LA. Partner could have x Axxx AKxxx QJx for example, when 5S will be ridiculous. Of course that hand is likely to double quickly. As an aside, would Pass by South have been forcing? It certainly ought to be. If so, then Pass by North is automatic.

[sanst]

 mcphee, on 2020-February-18, 07:39, said:

I let the score stand and add 3 imps for stupid appeal.

I think your qualification of the appeal could also be used to describe your post.

[sanst]

 gordontd, on 2020-February-18, 06:24, said:

I have known appeals committees who ignored a TD's poll because they didn't agree with its findings. I think it's fine for an AC to add to a small poll by doing their own polling, but I don't think they should add their own views as polling results because they won't have been asked in equivalent circumstances.

Certainly if your additional poll involved appropriate people asked in the proper way, then that is more than enough to consider pass to be an LA.

The problem with a poll among those who have played the hand, is that they quite often remember the board and it’s outcome, certainly when a slam that can or cannot be made is involved. Here the four players who were polled choose 5♠ and pass just once as a maybe, In the AC’s poll most players pass or consider passing. I think that proves my point.

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2020-February-20, 03:14, said:

The problem with a poll among those who have played the hand, is that they quite often remember the board and it’s outcome, certainly when a slam that can or cannot be made is involved. Here the four players who were polled choose 5♠ and pass just once as a maybe, In the AC’s poll most players pass or consider passing. I think that proves my point.

That was part of my point about polling "appropriate" people. I don't think we have been told whether any of the people polled had already played the hand or not, and in particular if the two groups differed in that respect. However some people are quite good at putting out of mind what they already know about a hand. Others may have been in precisely the situation of the poll and can tell us what they did at the table.

[jvage]

 gordontd, on 2020-February-20, 04:15, said:

That was part of my point about polling "appropriate" people. I don't think we have been told whether any of the people polled had already played the hand or not, and in particular if the two groups differed in that respect. However some people are quite good at putting out of mind what they already know about a hand. Others may have been in precisely the situation of the poll and can tell us what they did at the table.

In this case neither the pollees, the TD or the AC had played the boards, the match was played privately with only 2 tables. The appeal was several days later, and some of the pollees may have seen a discussion about the hand on Facebook. In our poll we asked if they had heard about the hand, which I think about a third had, I don't know if the TD asked about this. We did not notice any significant difference in opinion from those who had seen the hand before.

John

[Zelandakh]

 lamford, on 2020-February-19, 21:27, said:

Double covers a range of hands with extras and no sensible bid. A slow double demonstrably suggests that you hope partner can bid something. I think bidding on is demonstrably suggested by the UI, and I think Pass is an LA. Partner could have x Axxx AKxxx QJx for example, when 5S will be ridiculous. Of course that hand is likely to double quickly. As an aside, would Pass by South have been forcing? It certainly ought to be. If so, then Pass by North is automatic.

Without knowing whether South's pass would be forcing I am not sure we can say for certain what information a BIT transmits. If pass is NF and X is clearly takeout, then surely a slow double will tend to be hand with too much extra to pass but not of a classic shape and therefore quite likely to have extra defence? To me, if pass was forcing here and X was just convertible values then it is clear that South misbid badly by doubling. It seems much more sensible to assume that N-S knew their system and that X was a pure takeout, although if that were really the case then it is unbelievable that South would take 30+ seconds to make the call.

Fortunately we have a member of the AC here and since they surely asked precisely what the agreements were we do not have to guess. I would personally not like to make a ruling, nor even to answer a polling question, until being given this quite basic information. And if pollees were not given this information then it is hard to take the polls seriously. Was there perhaps a difference between the TD and AC polls in what information was given to the players?

[jvage]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-February-20, 08:18, said:

Without knowing whether South's pass would be forcing I am not sure we can say for certain what information a BIT transmits. If pass is NF and X is clearly takeout, then surely a slow double will tend to be hand with too much extra to pass but not of a classic shape and therefore quite likely to have extra defence? To me, if pass was forcing here and X was just convertible values then it is clear that South misbid badly by doubling. It seems much more sensible to assume that N-S knew their system and that X was a pure takeout, although if that were really the case then it is unbelievable that South would take 30+ seconds to make the call.

Fortunately we have a member of the AC here and since they surely asked precisely what the agreements were we do not have to guess. I would personally not like to make a ruling, nor even to answer a polling question, until being given this quite basic information. And if pollees were not given this information then it is hard to take the polls seriously. Was there perhaps a difference between the TD and AC polls in what information was given to the players?

As I wrote in the OP, they had not discussed this or similar positions (have you discussed the position after an opponent first pass and then preempt at the fivelevel?), and N/S did not mention any agreements that were relevant. Part of the assumed BIT was surely to consider if this was a forcing pass position and what double would show and if partner would assume the same. In retrospect both believed double was takeout-oriented, but some may consider that as selfserving evidence.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2020-February-19, 18:29, said:

If the rules require a pause in certain circumstances of a certain length, and the player concerned pauses for that length of time, there has been no "hesitation".

But if the rules require a pause of 10 seconds and you pause for 60 seconds, the additional 50 seconds is a hesitation. msjennifer claimed that the STOP regulations allow for any 10+ second pause.