Hesitation & Self-inflicted damage
I was asked my opinion on this auction. Afraid I don't the exact hands:
2h - X - pass (after long hesitation) - 2s
3h - p - p - X (ostensibly penalties), which made.
After the hand was played the doubler called the TD about the hesitation and wanted an adjusted score. At no point were rights reserved.
What questions would you ask as TD? Which polls?
The opening bidder has 7 hearts to the K and nothing else, deeming the hand too weak to open 3h. Apparently for that partnership it is common to open weak 3-level pre-empts as a weak and then bid again. Whilst this does not look like good bridge, it does appear to be an implicit understanding that justified the 3h bid despite the hesitation "it's how we but this type of hand; 3h automatic", but the argument is not convincing.
Tentative opinion was that the score stands as the doubler had lots of AI when making the bid and effectively dig her own grave. It also looks like a double-shot: "I'll X and if it makes I'll call the TD to correct", which is not allowed. But it somehow doesn't seem right that oppos got a top after their long agreed hesitation. But we weren't convinced we were right.
Comments
Hesitating is not an offence (unless done with the intent to deceive) - after all bridge is a thinking game and for most people thinking takes time. In fact most players don't think as long as they should.
Reserving rights is a 'may'; condition 16B2 - which means that not doing it is not wrong. So there is no obligation to do so - and the director cannot hold the fact that rights were not 'reserved' per se against the non-offending side.
The next question is: what was the hesitation showing - other than that the hand had no clear course of action? A redouble (outside strength), a desire to raise (pre-emptive), 2NT (if conventional) or a rescue - maybe 7 clubs.
So we have two problems for the 3H rebid - under Law 16B and 73C
16B states that a player may not select a call or play that is demonstrably suggested by the UI if another call or play is a logical alternative. BUT
73C states that a player must carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorised information (although this one I usually make use of if a player doubles when the pause suggests that his partner was going to take some action)
If you decide from the above that rebidding 3H doesn't break the two laws above then the result stands - as there is no infraction - and no adjustment. Personally I think the hesitation suggests values - which means that 3H is demonstrably suggested as it means that bidding on will be safer. However you should ask other players a) what would they do with the hand in question b) what alternatives would they consider and c) what do they think partner's pause suggests. This might be difficult since in theory you have to find players who would open 2H with a 7-card suit. (Self-raising one's own pre-empt is anathema to most bridge players - although Garozzo once double raised his own pre-empt (into a making contract))
Now we come to the double of 3 hearts. If you consider it to be a "gambling action which, if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification" (Law 12C1e) then
i. the offending side gets the adjusted score that would be awarded as a result of rectifying its infraction (here presumably 2 Spades - or maybe 4 Spades declared by opponents or some percentage allocated to each, although it depends on the hands). You also would have to consider what the person who paused would do in the auction 2H- X - P - 2S - P - P - ? He might pass, he might have a raise to 3H, he might double. It is not impossible that you may have to award some percentage to 3H since it has been reached in a legal manner (opener's partner has no UI)
ii The non-offending side does not receive relief for the part of the damage that is self inflicted.
This means that after you award the IMPS/MPs due to the other side for the result after rectification i.e. if they played in 2S or 4S, then you deduct the difference between what the result in 3H would have been (which is the damage that wasn't self-inflicted) and the result of 3H being doubled and making was.
e.g. :
+110 would have scored 10 matchpoints
-140 would have scored 4 matchpoints
-590 scored 0 matchpoints.
The damage that the side lost through the UI is 10 matchpoints (the difference between +110 and -590.
BUT had they not doubled 3 Hearts then the damage would only have been 6 matchpoints.
In fact they doubled 3 Hearts and lost 10 matchpoints. Four matchpoints of damage were self-inflicted.
Therefore the NOS are awarded 6 matchpoints (and the OS the complement to 10 matchpoints)
There may be some merit in amending the laws to apply additional sanctions of pairs that instigate "Wild or Gambling" actions relying on rectification if they do not work out. Extremely Serious Errors (the third criteria) are usually accidental subsequent breaches in the law e.g. revoking, leading from wrong hand and must not be connected to the original infraction - TDs should regard most errors in bidding and play (even playing for someone to hold 14 cards) as not being 'extremely serious errors..
(EBU panel directors can be contacted during sensible hours for telephone rulings - but not appeals - see https://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/tournament-director-list)
Weejonnie has covered it!
.
Just as an aside, at club level particularly, I try to discourage players from using the expression "I'm reserving my rights" as many less experienced players have no idea what it means and so it often sounds very officious and intimidating. It also suggests that the player saying "I'm reserving my rights" is unaware that there is only one singular right mentioned anywhere in the Laws (Law 16B2) and that is the right to summon the Director later. This singular right exists whether reserved or not, and in the Opening Post, this right was exercised anyway (although he might have been better advised to seek agreement at the end of the auction that there had been a significant period of thinking by his RHO).
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
If you're looking to poll people who are willing to open a weak two with a 7-card suit. I'm one of them. (I do this with hands that are outside the agreed range for a 3-level pre-empt; at least in first and second seat, if your 3-level pre-empts are too wide-ranging there's too much a risk of missing game. Having a long suit doesn't necessarily mean the hand belongs to the opponents!)
My rule for raising myself after opening a weak two with a 7-card suit is that I'll self-raise with a void in the opponent's suit, and consider self-raising with a void elsewhere. I won't normally do it if the hand contains no void (although I might be tempted to re-extend the pre-empt if partner extended it).