[mikeh]

I agree with everything Andy wrote in his first post. I don't feel quite the same way about his approval of your calling the director.

I'd agree if the choice were call the director or simply put it on the internet, but if those were the options, I'd do neither.

As it is, I understand, I think, why you chose to do both and you have done an excellent job of ensuring that nobody can read your story as a criticism of the ethics of your opps.

However, when the opps clearly did nothing wrong...when there is nothing that suggests even the possibility of UI...then I think it was wrong to call the director. One calls a director to make a ruling when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise. We shouldn't be calling the director merely because we don't like the bidding decision made by an opp, when there was zero reason to suspect UI.

I'd love to have heard the explanation given to the director.

'The opps acted with perfect ethics, in perfect tempo, got a terrible result, and we think that S made an unusual decision: please apply the Laws to this situation'

If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed. We got a bad board from one of us making a decision that worked out poorly. All of that I could live with, and I'd expect that N and S would, after the session, talk about the hand to see if this was simply a system fix...a hand that fell in the seams of their methods (in which case maybe they think about a tweak to the system)...or whether in hindsight one or both of them ought to have done something different. To have a director call seems like adding insult to injury.

As for the decision to pass, in my view any attempt to impose upon players a requirement that they display consistency in their actions, or that they conform to the expectations of others in their system design, is foolish beyond words.

Bridge is not played by robots, at least not in the real world, and attempts to make people play robotically ruin the game.

Finally, what does one do as an ethical S if S perceives that his partner took a little longer than usual to pass. You noted that N took 10-15 seconds. What if N usually takes 7-12 seconds and S thinks he took 15? S perceives a break in tempo, which you didn't notice because you aren't familiar with N's habits. S passes because he feels constrained by this UI, and he gets a bad result, which causes him little, if any, concern because that's how we play the game. Then you call the director on him.

Bad enough in the actual scenario, but what if defending undoubled got a good result? You still call the director, even tho you have zero suspicion of improper conduct of any kind, and what is the director to do?

There is more to this than I have covered so far, but I have gone on too long, as is often the case

[dake50]

You miss proper WEASEL technique.
The pass over 3C must show no interest as a proper
NegX is in tempo; whereas a trap pass double is long BIT.

[nielsfoged]

mikeh, on 2013-July-15, 17:37, said:

...
However, when the opps clearly did nothing wrong...when there is nothing that suggests even the possibility of UI...then I think it was wrong to call the director. One calls a director to make a ruling when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise. We shouldn't be calling the director merely because we don't like the bidding decision made by an opp, when there was zero reason to suspect UI.
...
I'd love to have heard the explanation given to the director.
...
If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed.
...
As for the decision to pass, in my view any attempt to impose upon players a requirement that they display consistency in their actions, or that they conform to the expectations of others in their system design, is foolish beyond words.
...
Finally, what does one do as an ethical S if S perceives that his partner took a little longer than usual to pass. You noted that N took 10-15 seconds. What if N usually takes 7-12 seconds and S thinks he took 15? S perceives a break in tempo, which you didn't notice because you aren't familiar with N's habits. S passes because he feels constrained by this UI, and he gets a bad result, which causes him little, if any, concern because that's how we play the game. Then you call the director on him.

Bad enough in the actual scenario, but what if defending undoubled got a good result? You still call the director, even tho you have zero suspicion of improper conduct of any kind, and what is the director to do?
...

Hello Mike

Thank you for your comment even if it shows that you disagree with my actions. My reason for calling the TD was astonishment of finding South with a - in my view! - perfect shape for a re-opening with a double, a bid which I expected to be not only systematic, but also consistently bid by almost all pairs, who have decided to play and declare "Negative Doubles over preempts".

Whenever I read "Stayman" on opponent's convention card and 1NT-opener replies 2♦ to 2♣, I base my subsequent decisions of that board on the expectation of 1NT-opener having no major 4(5) card suit. I know that 1NT opener can choose not to show his major over 2♣, but almost all pairs "display consistency in their actions" in that situation. Admittedly, my expectation of consistency in re-opening with 4-4-4-1 and 12 hcp is more speculative than replying correctly to Stayman, but for me the actual hand was a text book Double. Also, I have to admit, that I (East) had no more decisions to make on the actual board, since I became dummy in 3♣. Alone for that reason, I should probably not have called the TD, but I did since my partner did not (he is kinder than me, and understands the rules better than I do).

There are a couple of issues you bring up, Mike, which I like to comment on:
* You say: "One calls a director... ...when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise...". I am not sure I know what "untoward" exactly means (Webster's has 3 defintions: "unruly/intractable", "unlucky/adverse" and "improper/indecorous" - I guess it is the later meaning you refer to). However, with my admittedly little insights in the bridge laws, I felt that "pass" included all 3 of those aspects, and simply wanted the TD to look at it with competence.
* You say: "If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed.". That is exactly what happened
Yesterday, I appologized in writing to my opponents, and referred them to this post. Today, I consider doing the same to the TD - maybe he will then comment here on how he interpreted my explanation, which obviously was less detailed and well-considered compared to this post mortem post (we were in an important MP-tournament with 21 minutes per round of 3 boards).
* You ask: "...what if defending undoubled got a good result [for my opponents]?". Actually, I am very happy that I called the TD even though we got 90% on the board. If we had scored poorly, I am sure that most of you in this forum, my opponents, and probably also the TD would have been very concerned, that I was trying to make up for a bad result by trying to get compensation from the TD. This was obviously not the case!

PS: I am almost certain, that South did not perceive any break in tempo, and that he passed because he in any circumstance believed it to be the best bridge decision (and obviously did not find any obligations to double with the actual hand despite playing Negative Doubles) - maybe he will comment on that here too?

/Niels