[ahydra]

We had a ruling tonight that left a bad taste in our mouths for multiple reasons. To give some background, my partner is easily distracted, extremely slow at sorting cards, and was also sitting South where she was responsible for the scoring tablet. This combination of factors mean that her first call on each board can take perhaps 4-20 seconds while she sorts cards, scores the previous board on the tablet and personal scorecard, locates her pen (written bidding in use), and refocuses. Of note also is that her overall tempo is generally slower than most - perhaps by a second or two per call or play.

This particular board, which was the second in the round, her LHO was dealer. She was doing all the above things while the other three players made a call. She then examined her hand and, within normal tempo, made a call. The opponents however subsequently claimed she hesitated because of the total delay between RHO's call and hers. From what I remember, the timing was roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call. I told the TD that I did not agree there was a significant BIT, citing the above behaviour as something that happens on every hand. Nonetheless the TD ruled that there had been a BIT, and said that a BIT for whatever reason still counts as one.

Certainly there are ways to mitigate this, such as partner instructing others not to bid until she is ready; letting me score; and perhaps learning a more efficient way to sort (but old habits die hard). That may be, but is it correct to rule that there was a significant (in the L16/73 sense) BIT here? In particular, I am worried about those who are less able-bodied being put at a disadvantage if the circumstances of a delay are not taken into account.

Thanks,

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2019-November-01, 04:59, said:

We had a ruling tonight that left a bad taste in our mouths for multiple reasons. To give some background, my partner is easily distracted, extremely slow at sorting cards, and was also sitting South where she was responsible for the scoring tablet. This combination of factors mean that her first call on each board can take perhaps 4-20 seconds while she sorts cards, scores the previous board on the tablet and personal scorecard, locates her pen (written bidding in use), and refocuses. Of note also is that her overall tempo is generally slower than most - perhaps by a second or two per call or play.

This particular board, which was the second in the round, her LHO was dealer. She was doing all the above things while the other three players made a call. She then examined her hand and, within normal tempo, made a call. The opponents however subsequently claimed she hesitated because of the total delay between RHO's call and hers. From what I remember, the timing was roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call. I told the TD that I did not agree there was a significant BIT, citing the above behaviour as something that happens on every hand. Nonetheless the TD ruled that there had been a BIT, and said that a BIT for whatever reason still counts as one.

Certainly there are ways to mitigate this, such as partner instructing others not to bid until she is ready; letting me score; and perhaps learning a more efficient way to sort (but old habits die hard). That may be, but is it correct to rule that there was a significant (in the L16/73 sense) BIT here? In particular, I am worried about those who are less able-bodied being put at a disadvantage if the circumstances of a delay are not taken into account.

Thanks,

ahydra

If your description is accurate I am astonished by this ruling.
First of all I would never include time spent with "other" (not extraneous) things like scoring, counting the cards face down and sorting the cards. The relevant time is the time spent looking at the hand (after sorting the cards) and (apparently) considering what call to make.
And BIT is short for "break in tempo" which means that if this is the player's normal behaviour then there is no break in tempo.

[mycroft]

This is difficult. A "slower than normal" player who also is just picking up her cards after all of the rest of the things she was doing as South, then having to see the auction, then her "extra second or so", sure looks like a BIT from the other side of the table.

I think you have to take control of this, when you can. Next time LHO opens and you know partner isn't even close to ready, say so, and say something like "I know what I'm bidding, but I'm not going to call until partner is ready," put your hand down, and stick to it. Now, if they have an issue, it's with you, and your argument to the TD will make more sense, and partner, by the time she calls, can see the auction take place "in time" instead of having to process it in "her time".

I have two notes to this, however:

• There are people who refuse to start boards until *they* are ready, and they are happy to waste 30 seconds to a minute getting "ready". First they have to explain to partner what they did wrong, then they have to score in their personal score card, then they have to score on the tablet (and ask all the questions about who was declarer and what the lead was and "Oh, were we vulnerable?"), then put their personal score back in their purse, then (if we still have a traveller on the tablet) look at everything and discuss *that*, then maybe we'll swap the boards, and then ... And heaven help anybody who tries to shortcut this, or do "her job".
  
  I am not saying your partner is one of those (there's definitely a big difference between wasting time and needing time), but that's the situation I will start the next auction, just to kill the post-mortem; and I would take very ill to this person's partner delaying the game until "partner's ready". But that's not BIT, that's wasting time.
  
• I assume that the play is such that you are not perennially late. If so, it's time for you to find things of hers to do so that her ritual takes less time. One I learned with one of my partners is "if I do the tablet, you keep the personal score."

[FelicityR]

Obviously some players take more time than others. We had a middle-aged married couple pair at our club who would regularly call the director for the slightest reason. One day, a few years ago, I retaliated after one session when I told them privately that "Their behaviour was prejudiced to the older and disabled members of the club, and if they didn't like playing against people who's physical and mental faculties are not so quick as theirs, then they should go play elsewhere." Needless to say they didn't come back ever again.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps the person who passes the boards to this lady can sort them after playing. I believe that this is legal if there is a genuine need?

And as others have noted, it seems bonkers that she enters the score in the machine.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-01, 14:32, said:

Perhaps the person who passes the boards to this lady can sort them after playing. I believe that this is legal if there is a genuine need?

It makes sense, but I think the need would have to be better justified than in this case. We don't do this even for our blind player (who takes normal time to sort but occasionally makes a mistake). Sounds to me as if she just needs a stiff talking to and better organisation in terms of score keeping by the pair.

[sanst]

If this TD was an umpire at tennis Rafael Nadal would never have made it to the top of the field.
In my view it’s bad form to put a new board on the table and take the cards from it while one of the players is still busy with the former board. I also think it’s impolite to start the auction before all four have sorted and seen their hands. My own partner picks up her cards one by one and even if my RHO starts the auction I wait till she is ready. Nobody has ever complained about that, but if they call the TD and he decides as the one in this case did, I will call the director every time there is a - however slight - hesitation on the side of my opponents.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-November-02, 01:51, said:

It makes sense, but I think the need would have to be better justified than in this case. We don't do this even for our blind player (who takes normal time to sort but occasionally makes a mistake). Sounds to me as if she just needs a stiff talking to and better organisation in terms of score keeping by the pair.

How can a blind player sort his cards at all?

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-02, 04:04, said:

How can a blind player sort his cards at all?

Each card has denomination and rank embossed in braille at the corner. Some people dislike this (the cards don't slide smoothly against each other) so we have two main sets of boards, one for when he is registered to play and one for when he is not. We don't have a duplicating machine so it would not be practical for only his table to play with the braille cards. But on the whole it works fine. Of course we have to read out the dummy to him and make all calls out loud too. That's no problem in itself, but when people move to the next table they often continue to make calls out loud which gets very odd looks

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2019-November-02, 02:44, said:

In my view it’s bad form to put a new board on the table and take the cards from it while one of the players is still busy with the former board. I also think it’s impolite to start the auction before all four have sorted and seen their hands. My own partner picks up her cards one by one and even if my RHO starts the auction I wait till she is ready. Nobody has ever complained about that, but if they call the TD and he decides as the one in this case did, I will call the director every time there is a - however slight - hesitation on the side of my opponents.

That seems a bit… petty.

[axman]

ahydra, on 2019-November-01, 04:59, said:

We had a ruling tonight that left a bad taste in our mouths for multiple reasons. To give some background, my partner is easily distracted, extremely slow at sorting cards, and was also sitting South where she was responsible for the scoring tablet. This combination of factors mean that her first call on each board can take perhaps 4-20 seconds while she sorts cards, scores the previous board on the tablet and personal scorecard, locates her pen (written bidding in use), and refocuses. Of note also is that her overall tempo is generally slower than most - perhaps by a second or two per call or play.

This particular board, which was the second in the round, her LHO was dealer. She was doing all the above things while the other three players made a call. She then examined her hand and, within normal tempo, made a call. The opponents however subsequently claimed she hesitated because of the total delay between RHO's call and hers. From what I remember, the timing was roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call. I told the TD that I did not agree there was a significant BIT, citing the above behaviour as something that happens on every hand. Nonetheless the TD ruled that there had been a BIT, and said that a BIT for whatever reason still counts as one.

Certainly there are ways to mitigate this, such as partner instructing others not to bid until she is ready; letting me score; and perhaps learning a more efficient way to sort (but old habits die hard). That may be, but is it correct to rule that there was a significant (in the L16/73 sense) BIT here? In particular, I am worried about those who are less able-bodied being put at a disadvantage if the circumstances of a delay are not taken into account.

Thanks,

ahydra

1. the board should not be changed** until after the score has been recorded and approved. Perhaps this will avoid the problem.

2. not withstanding the above, my policy is that I never participate in an auction until it appears that all the players are on the ready. Translation- if there is something more*** important like eating supper, going to the john, recounting the lowlights of the last three vacations- you are going nowhere fast anyway. Allowing others to get it out of their system without interruption produces several kinds of good outcomes a. auctions lake less time than the alternative b. considerably less tempo problems c. fewer MI problems.

3. I have found that getting the TD involved immediately for preventative purposes has a lot of downside since they tend to not be very competent in these matters

** the markings on the board control the board, thus complete scoring before changing boards to avoid errors

*** as for players that are discourteously infantile, there is some uncomfortable pressure that comes from no action- once a miscreant realizes (on their own) that nothing will happen until they are paying attention, there is a tendency to pay attention sooner.

[pescetom]

axman, on 2019-November-02, 12:32, said:

1. the board should not be changed** until after the score has been recorded and approved. Perhaps this will avoid the problem.

2. not withstanding the above, my policy is that I never participate in an auction until it appears that all the players are on the ready. Translation- if there is something more*** important like eating supper, going to the john, recounting the lowlights of the last three vacations- you are going nowhere fast anyway. Allowing others to get it out of their system without interruption produces several kinds of good outcomes a. auctions lake less time than the alternative b. considerably less tempo problems c. fewer MI problems.

3. I have found that getting the TD involved immediately for preventative purposes has a lot of downside since they tend to not be very competent in these matters

I fully agree with point 1. More in general, South (or whoever is responsible for these things) should ensure agreement about score (and contract if necessary) before cards are sorted and restored to board, enter score and obtain confirmation by opponents, leave any note taking to partner, refuse any requests or attempts to inspect other hands, remove the played board and carefully select and position next board, discourage time wasting or interference by others and generally set an example. It seems obvious that if one partner is indisciplined and slow then the other should assume the control seat.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-02, 10:24, said:

That seems a bit… petty.

Maybe you’re right. But I would be seriously upset if the TD was called because I waited till my partner is ready. And, were I called as a TD, I would probably advise the players not to make a nuisance of themselves.

[BudH]

A BIT is unauthorized information to that person's partner. But in this case, it is clear that you as the player's partner had no unauthorized information since this is approximately the amount of time this player takes AFTER cards are sorted and starts deciding what call to make.

From your description of "roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call", that is starting to stretch the limits, even for a known slow player. But I still would not rule this unauthorized information from what you have said.

And I suggest you perform the extraneous duties, not your partner, in the interest of all to keep the game moving!

[pescetom]

BudH, on 2019-November-03, 08:37, said:

From your description of "roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call", that is starting to stretch the limits, even for a known slow player. But I still would not rule this unauthorized information from what you have said.

I wouldn't even consider 4-5 seconds before a call to stretch the limit, so long as she is consistent. But if partner is capable of evaluating that objectively then he clearly should have positioned her in North and be understanding towards fretting opponents too.

[Vampyr]

BudH, on 2019-November-03, 08:37, said:

A BIT is unauthorized information to that person's partner. But in this case, it is clear that you as the player's partner had no unauthorized information since this is approximately the amount of time this player takes AFTER cards are sorted and starts deciding what call to make.

From your description of "roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call", that is starting to stretch the limits, even for a known slow player. But I still would not rule this unauthorized information from what you have said.

And I suggest you perform the extraneous duties, not your partner, in the interest of all to keep the game moving!

Perhaps that solution wouldn’t work. I suspect that the player in question is doing what she does in order to disconcert the opponents. She would find another way to create a delay.

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-04, 03:25, said:

Perhaps that solution wouldn’t work. I suspect that the player in question is doing what she does in order to disconcert the opponents. She would find another way to create a delay.

If it is my partner you are referring to, then I can say for sure this is not the case. She is just slow. There are a couple of players who employ gamesmanship tactics at the club and I avoid them like the plague.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2019-November-04, 19:09, said:

If it is my partner you are referring to, then I can say for sure this is not the case. She is just slow. There are a couple of players who employ gamesmanship tactics at the club and I avoid them like the plague.

ahydra

Well, the motive may be subconscious, but even though I don’t know the person I can guarantee that there is gamesmanship going on. Why would a person who is known to be slow, and knows that it is annoying to the opponents, insist on operating the scoring machine? It would not surprise me if, when she is dummy, she enters nothing until the hand is completed, but perhaps she knows that she could hardly get away with that considering everything else.

[Tramticket]

The post does not mention that any adjustment was applied to the scores for using UI, so I assume that you and your opponents simply went through the correct procedures here to establish that UI had been conveyed:
- Opponents asked to reserve their rights for the BIT.
- You disagreed that there had been a BIT.
- You called the director.

At this point the director is faced with conflicting claims from both sides and has to make a judgement, based on the representations from the two sides, whether there has been a Break in Tempo (resulting in UI). I have some sympathy with the director, as these judgments are not easy and the facts are not always "black or white". You were always going to have a difficult task arguing your case, given that you had acknowledged that your partner had been slow. The director's comment that a BIT for whatever reason still counts as one is strange and seems wrong - I would want to know the context of the comment. Maybe your partner failed to get any "benefit of the doubt" to encourage her to play a little faster? (Not strictly covered by the laws, but directors are human too!)

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-05, 08:05, said:

Well, the motive may be subconscious, but even though I don’t know the person I can guarantee that there is gamesmanship going on. Why would a person who is known to be slow, and knows that it is annoying to the opponents, insist on operating the scoring machine? It would not surprise me if, when she is dummy, she enters nothing until the hand is completed, but perhaps she knows that she could hardly get away with that considering everything else.

You seem to be assuming a level of self-awareness that may not really exist. I suspect most people aren't aware of at least 50% of the things they do that annoy other people. And in cases where they are aware, many may think it's the other people's problem, they're not doing anything wrong.