[gwnn]

You are on opening lead after the bidding goes:

1♦-1♠
4♠-4NT
5♥-... 5♠
6♠

5♠ was quite slow and dummy bid 6♠ quickly, shrugging, saying "nah come on"

When you call the director (edit: and you explain the BIT situation), do you additionally tell them about dummy's remark suggesting they took notice of declarer's uncertainty or do you find that a bit too much like character assassination? I always find director calls difficult, I don't want to "accuse my opponents of cheating."

(I am not looking for a ruling FWIW, the hand was obvious and it got reversed. Dummy had a 4144 16-count with two key cards. Declarer just somehow didn't want to be in a slam with 5 keycards but missing the trump queen.)

[sanst]

The remark is not the problem, but you should consult the director about the raise to slam after the undisputed pause for thought. In most cases the TD doesn’t allow the raise. The player who asks keycards should decide on the final bid, not his or her partner, certainly not after a break in tempo.
If you think that there was something not quite what it should have been, you call the director. There’s nothing like an accusation of cheating or character assassination in that. It’s far worse to leave the table with the feeling that things didn’t go quite by the rules and feel bad about it or worse still, complain about it when it’s too late.

[gwnn]

Sorry, of course I started with explaining the BIT situation, but I also mentioned the the remark as I thought it made the case even stronger. Do you think that's ok?

[FelicityR]

gwnn, on 2019-December-17, 01:35, said:

When you call the director...I don't want to "accuse my opponents of cheating."

But you are calling the TD because in your personal view the opponents have transgressed the rules and regulations that govern bridge, and whilst that may not be classed as "cheating" per se, it is an "alleged offence" under the said rules and regulations.

You did the right thing by calling the TD. It is then for the TD to decide.

Edit: Sorry, of course I started with explaining the BIT situation, but I also mentioned the the remark as I thought it made the case even stronger. Do you think that's ok?

Yes. The remark surely forms part of the auction as no card has been played, even though bidding boxes were used. It is more suggestive than just 'Good luck, partner,' (which is usually said after the lead has been made.)

[gwnn]

That makes sense Felicity, thanks. It's just something I am struggling with. We are a friendly club but it's all rated I don't think anyone at our club is calling the TD for anything other than revokes or leads out of turn, which are less like "cheating" in some way. I also only called the TD for BIT stuff a grand total of 2 times in about 20 sessions so I guess I am not overdoing it.

Most club players are completely unaware of what unauthorised information and logical alternatives are so I think I am doing them a favour also but I am mostly doing it to improve my results, lol.

(In this case, dummy obviously didn't know the UI rules but declarer did. He was a very good sport about it, admitted to the BIT and told the TD he thinks it should be reversed even unprompted)

[sfi]

As a director I would prefer to hear all the facts at the time, including remarks. My job is to filter through the information and determine its relevance.

One consideration is that if it does become a complex situation and you only bring up the remark later, it means I don't have the opportunity to confirm that with the opposition while the situation is still fresh in everyone's mind. And that is likely to make any issue about impropriety more fraught.

Another consideration is that if you bring up something like that at the table - ideally in a neutral manner - then I can gauge the opponents' reaction and assess how to manage the situation. I need to have a word with them about what should and should not be said, or maybe take some other action. If bringing up the remark will inflame the situation, I would prefer to be there to moderate it.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2019-December-17, 03:53, said:

As a director I would prefer to hear all the facts at the time, including remarks. My job is to filter through the information and determine its relevance.

One consideration is that if it does become a complex situation and you only bring up the remark later, it means I don't have the opportunity to confirm that with the opposition while the situation is still fresh in everyone's mind. And that is likely to make any issue about impropriety more fraught.

Another consideration is that if you bring up something like that at the table - ideally in a neutral manner - then I can gauge the opponents' reaction and assess how to manage the situation. I need to have a word with them about what should and should not be said, or maybe take some other action. If bringing up the remark will inflame the situation, I would prefer to be there to moderate it.

As a director I agree with this, I would want to know about the remark and it would be inappropriate to bring it up without calling me.

As a player I might not mention the remark, that depends upon my assessment of opponents and director and my own state of mind - from a technical point of view the keycard reply compounded with BIT should be enough and it might be simpler for everybody to leave things there.

[blackshoe]

When you call the director, report the facts. All the facts.

[Vampyr]

Hesitation Blackwood is a particularly egregious offence, as what the UI suggests is really obvious. I would not need the comment to rule against the pair.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-17, 09:49, said:

When you call the director, report the facts. All the facts.

That's fine on paper, and usually I come very close.
But in practice a player has a delicate balance to maintain, especially if the player is a director himself. Yes a director has to set an example, but that also includes not being seen as lawyering, or embellishing his case to put pressure on a colleague.
I also have a partner who is very sensitive to upset opponents and I'm in no hurry to lose a tournament just to dot the 'i's on what is already a clear cut offence.

[nige1]

gwnn, on 2019-December-17, 01:35, said:

You are on opening lead after the bidding goes:

1♦-1♠
4♠-4NT
5♥-... 5♠
6♠

5♠ was quite slow and dummy bid 6♠ quickly, shrugging, saying "nah come on"
When you call the director (edit: and you explain the BIT situation), do you additionally tell them about dummy's remark suggesting they took notice of declarer's uncertainty or do you find that a bit too much like character assassination? I always find director calls difficult, I don't want to "accuse my opponents of cheating."
(I am not looking for a ruling FWIW, the hand was obvious and it got reversed. Dummy had a 4144 16-count with two key cards. Declarer just somehow didn't want to be in a slam with 5 keycards but missing the trump queen.)

gwnn, on 2019-December-17, 03:25, said:

Sorry, of course I started with explaining the BIT situation, but I also mentioned the the remark as I thought it made the case even stronger. Do you think that's ok?

Yes

pescetom, on 2019-December-17, 11:52, said:

That's fine on paper, and usually I come very close.
But in practice a player has a delicate balance to maintain, especially if the player is a director himself. Yes a director has to set an example, but that also includes not being seen as lawyering or embellishing his case to put pressure on a colleague. I also have a partner who is very sensible to upset opponents and I'm in no hurry to lose a tournament just to dot the 'i's on what is already a clear cut offence.

Eric Crowhurst, Hugh Kelsey, and Stuart Maurice hated to win on legal technicalities (e.g. revokes, misbids, misplays, misclaims, penalty cards, and so on. They were loth to call the director. If their partner called the director, they would usually ask for the penalty to be waived. I believe that is also Michael Rosenberg's position. The OP case is so blatant, however, that they would all probably call the director and accept the adjustment. They might fail to report "nah come on", which they might regard as "gilding refined gold".

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2019-December-17, 12:56, said:

They might fail to report "nah come on", which they might regard as "gilding refined gold".

"Fertilizing pure manure" is perhaps more appropriate, but we are on the same wavelength.