[blml] Be prepared!

[Peter Eidt]

> 
> Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> **********************
> "One writes only half the book,
> the other half is with the reader."
>                    ~ Joseph Conrad.
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> WBF Code of Practice:
> 
> "A 'logical alternative' is a different
> action that, amongst the class of players in
> question and using the methods of the
> partnership, would be given serious
> consideration by a significant proportion of
> such players, of whom it is reasonable to
> think some might adopt it.".
> ..............................................................
> EBU Law and Ethics Committee:
> 
> >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many
> >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest
> >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch.
> >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid
> >>conclusion of general application when a player
> >>is under pressure at a high level.  Accordingly,
> >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a
> >>logical alternative does not seem right, it
> >>would not have been surprising if the score had
> >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the
> >>successful action was not suggested by the
> >>unauthorised information.
> ............................................................
> 
> +=+ I do not have access to it for the moment but
> can someone research the (extended) CoP on the 
> subject of 'hot seat auctions' ?
>                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 

sure, Peter

Notes on Rulings – 5 Hot Seat Rulings
An ACBL appeals committee passed
comments that fit well with WBF thinking
in relation to what they called ‘hot seat’
auctions. It is desirable to exhibit extra
tolerance in relation to a ‘hesitation’ when
a player encounters an unprecedented
situation in the auction.
Thought was given to requiring a twenty
second pause behind screens over a skip
bid; there was also discussion of a
possibility this might extend to abnormal
situations encountered in the auction
because of opponents’ extraordinary
agreements. These are questions that may
arise again if we are unsuccessful in
securing the desired irregularity of
movement of the tray.
An aspect that has special significance,
when a player meets a quite unusual
bidding situation and takes time to
deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to
partner what is the nature of his problem.
In such a situation a player may have to
think from scratch what action is
appropriate, and it is not altogether rare
that he may have all three options – pass,
double (redouble), and bid, and a choice to
make. If a Director is inclined to find that
the partner’s subsequent bid is suggested
by the breach of tempo, the first
consideration is to judge whether it can
truly be said that one action is suggested
over another, or whether the message
from the ‘hesitation’ is unclear. A
sympathetic treatment of the law here
should be an aim and it is an area in which
regulating authorities may find it helpful to
give guidance.