Nabc+ 061-4
Uploaded by
EleeistNabc+ 061-4
Uploaded by
EleeistAPPEAL NABC+ FOUR
Subject: Tempo
DIC: Henry Cukoff
Event: Mixed Pairs
Session: First Qualifying, April 4, 2006
Board #3 Benny Libsten
Vul: E/W ♠K
Dlr: South ♥AT8652
♦T97
♣T83
R. Jay Becker Rhoda Prager
♠Q9432 ♠AT865
♥63 ♥KJ87
♦4 ♦AJ
♣A9542 ♣J6
Hai Gates
♠J7
♥Q
♦KQ86532
♣KQ7
West North East South
1♦
Pass 2♥1 Pass2 3♦
Dbl Pass 4♠ Pass
Pass Dbl All Pass
(1) Not Alerted.
(2) Alleged break in tempo.
The Facts: The director was called after the double of 3♦. North claimed that East’s Pass
over 2♥ was longer than ten seconds. East said that she took a few seconds and then
asked about the 2♥ call, which had not been alerted, and then took a few more seconds
and passed within ten seconds. South said that she did not notice how long it was. West
said that it was at most twelve seconds. The table result was 4♠ doubled making four,
E/W +790.
The Ruling: There was no break in tempo as East is required to wait about ten seconds
over a skip bid. Therefore, there is no infraction and the table result of 4♠ doubled
making four, E/W +790 stands. South was advised that the weak jump shift response
without competition requires an Alert.
The Appeal: N/S said that they disagreed with the director’s ruling because East thought
about the 2♥ bid, sought an explanation, got it, and then hesitated more than ten seconds.
They contended that this constituted a break in tempo. E/W said that East thought about
five seconds before the explanation and then about twelve seconds after it.
The Decision: The Committee decided that an unmistakable hesitation occurred and that
it clearly showed that East had a hand worth contemplating possible action. Pass was a
logical alternative for West over 3♦. Therefore, the Committee adjusted the table result
to 3♦ making four, N/S +130 and E/W -130.
The Committee: Barry Rigal (Chair), Jeff Aker, Richard Budd, Ed Lazarus and Chris
Willenken.
Commentary:
Goldsmith Good judgment by the AC. How can we know there was a hesitation? By
West's double. Perhaps a procedural penalty (PP) for blatant misuse of
unauthorized information (UI) was in order.
Polisner Well, it is refreshing to have a player acknowledge the length of the
hesitation as without that acknowledgement; the evidence would not
support an “unmistakable hesitation” as required by Law 16, taking into
account the skip bid. West, having knowledge of the UI, should have been
issued a PP for blatant use of the UI.
Rigal From the facts before the committee it did seem that there was a break in
tempo (BIT). It is not entirely surprising that the tournament director ruled
the other way initially, given South’s complicity in the problem by her
failure to alert. That said, if a BIT was established, then West clearly had a
logical alternative to acting.
Wildavsky I understand the tournament director (TD) ruling -- my guess is that the
TD judged that N/S had brought this problem upon themselves through
their failure to alert.
The AC did a good job of bringing out the facts and given those facts its
ruling looks right to me.
Wolff Good ruling and West was ENTIRELY out of line to bid, still between
two bidders but expecting North to pass. When East does not bid an
obvious two spades, but commits hesitation disruption instead, to me it is
time for both East and West to be censured.
Zeiger Whoa! I'll accept the Committee's finding of a tempo break, based on
E/W's own testimony. I'll accept the Committee's finding that Pass by
West over 3♦ was a logical alternative. I refuse to accept the Committee's
failure to even address whether East would pass out 3♦. Yes, yes, I know
East might well have passed, but to not even discuss it? East might
certainly think she was being stolen blind. Decision may be right, but
failing grade to the Committee anyway.