[jillybean]

There’s something very wrong if we need to change our system to avoid the opponents taking advantage of breaks in tempo.

I assume you had a CC available , on the table. The opponents should be prepared for this auction, it should not come as a surprise.
I like the approach in other countries where the CC’s are exchanged with your opponents when you sit down.

But we know that it doesn’t matter what I think.

[DavidKok]

We exchange CC's at the start of the round, but I've also encountered this particular slow weak pass a few times.

[jillybean]

Why can't we get this right?

[helene_t]

Maybe a "stop" card should go with this pass that forces the redouble. Next hand could easily be thinking about whether direct action is weaker or stronger, or more distributional or less distributional, than delayed action. A fast pass followed by a double would then show a balanced take-out. Maybe, if we don't have solid agreements about how we defend against the pass-forces-redouble, we should always pass slowly over this forcing pass, even with a flat yarb.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi

#1 the cc exchange at the begin of a round, against opponents you will lay at most 4 boards, does not really matter,
do you really look at their runout, do you expect that they will do?

#2 the stop card could help, ..., but devising a general roule, will be hard, the stop card rule after a jump is simple.

In case it matters, we also play pass forces XX.
But than I usually play Team, behind Screens, and dont really care about my MP results, I guess, I should, it may improve
my MP results.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

awm: If this is/was a common situation, then maybe follow the ACBL-recommended (but usually a waste of time) pattern that is the equivalent to "reserving your rights"; ask if everyone agrees the pass was slow, calling the director *before you redouble* if not - and maybe even if so.

It's way too easy to argue after the fact that "I didn't notice anything" or "it wasn't that long, he was just remembering our defence to PfR" or...making the pre-emptive pull with the TD actually there is sometimes a bit harder.

Of course, it depends on *why* the ruling was "result stands". If it was "no UI", then my suggestion above is useful. If it was "no LA", okay, show me the poll results. If it were "if it goes XX-p-p, fourth hand will pull and they will end up in the same spot", then look at that.

[awm]

The basis of the rulings was that the slow pass does not suggest removing the double. There was no question that the break in tempo happened nor that leaving your own penalty double in place was a LA.

I guess the director thought the slow pass might be a hand deciding whether to defend or bid a game? But this hand is very unlikely and even then pulling the double might be a winner. In my experience slow pass here has always been a terrible hand with no clear place to run, but perhaps the director has not played so much mini notrump? These are top ACBL directors in national events though, not random club directors.

[pescetom]

awm, on 2025-March-25, 07:40, said:

Playing in US nationals, several times I’ve had the auction:

1nt (10-12) - X (penalty) - Pass (forces XX) - slow pass
XX - some suit bid

The slow pass was inevitably a weak hand with no long suit, and the removal of the redouble by doubler was to a four card suit with a fairly balanced (and minimum) penalty double.

We called the director each time this occurred and could never get any ruling but “result stands”; seemingly the director thought that the slow pass didn’t signify anything specific

The director would have done better to ask peers of the slow passer what it suggested.
Although I'm probably not one, because I struggle to imagine what fast pass would signify: desire to punish?

[jillybean]

X is penalty, until it comes back to you and then you can re evaluate.

I'm not suggesting exchanging CC will negate this issue but it should reduce any wiggle room the offenders have claiming they had to think about the opponents pass/xx. It's GBK that weak nt'ers check these things and have their run outs planned.

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-25, 09:54, said:

#2 the stop card could help, ..., but devising a general roule, will be hard, the stop card rule after a jump is simple.

It wouldn't be hard over here... after a jump or any alertable pass, double or redouble.
This because only a few weird doubles/redoubles are alertable, unlike say EBU.

I like the idea.

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-March-25, 09:54, said:

#2 the stop card could help, ..., but devising a general roule, will be hard, the stop card rule after a jump is simple.

It wouldn't be hard over here... after a jump or any alertable pass, double or redouble.
This because only a few weird doubles/redoubles are alertable, unlike say EBU.

I like the idea.

[mycroft]

Interesting. Sorry about that. I'd still like to see the poll though.

Note: we've been getting much more heavily into polling in the last 5 or so years; before that, directors were more likely to trust their own experience (not universally, but polling went from "when we're unclear" to "routine" in my (admittedly limited, especially in NABC+ events) experience.) So it wouldn't surprise me if the answer was "there was no poll, it's just obvious that..." back in the day.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-March-25, 17:42, said:

Interesting. Sorry about that. I'd still like to see the poll though.

Note: we've been getting much more heavily into polling in the last 5 or so years; before that, directors were more likely to trust their own experience (not universally, but polling went from "when we're unclear" to "routine" in my (admittedly limited, especially in NABC+ events) experience.) So it wouldn't surprise me if the answer was "there was no poll, it's just obvious that..." back in the day.

Which question(s) will you ask in the poll?

Take a look at this hand, your opponents open 1nt 10-12
Your agreement in Direct seat X is penalty. Do you make a penalty double then pull it after partner passes and the opponents run?

[mycroft]

Don't take this as a class, I'm just going off the top of my head here. But this would be my plan (after a crazy game directing-and-playing, having dealt the wrong boards at first, and accidentally causing a small issue for the club; trying to resolve that, and calming down with tequila. So, again, don't take it as full gospel):

1. at [vul], RHO opens a 10-13 NT and you hold this hand (a). Playing [mini-NT defence], what do you do?

2. (Assuming they penalty double), it goes pass, Alerted as "to play 1NTxx or a runout with whatever (assuming Guoba Rescues, "whatever" is "two non-touching suits")"(b), pass by partner and the forced redouble by opener. Your call?
2a. If they don't penalty double, you ask if they're comfortable with double, and continue. You might learn *why* they preferred the other action later, usually with "see, this is why I didn't double the first time". But you note that in your poll results, too, because a "yeah, okay, but not my first choice" person's responses are of a different flavour to the "sure, I hit it." people.
2b. Even with the "sure, I hit it" people, you probably should ask, if they haven't thought it all aloud already, "any other ideas?" to see how strong they are on their action (and to minimize telegraphing the problem) ( c).

3. So, you get the answer to "your call". Again, you ask if there are any other options, and you listen to, and if possible record (d), their responses.

All the above will get you "is pass a LA to pull?" once you have polled enough people. You can see where it might not be "4 for pass, one for pull", more "2 pass immediately; one pulled, but they were worried about this situation last round and didn't like their double; one pulled, but wasn't really sure about it, maybe might pass and hope; one pulled, but then asked 'so, does LHO's pass guarantee values?', and when told 'no, it could be to play, but it could be [runout]', sat for it." or many other options.

But that isn't all the legs of the Law 16 stool, so:

4. If what you're actually interested in is "what does the UI 'demonstrably suggest'", then after you get all the "what are the LAs" information, you ask "partner [asked about the Alert and] took some time to think over the pass. What do you think that means?" And then "what would that information lead you to do, if you were allowed to use it?" (note that especially in NABC+ events, you are going to get "but I have to avoid using it" or "oh if partner tanked, I can't X" - which, great, they know the Law. But you're trying to work out what they are "carefully avoid"ing, so you need them to tell you rather than what (they think) they legally are required to do.)

Sure, there are cases where what the UI says is obvious. Hence, my wondering if the director's ruling was "yeah, it suggested pulling, but after XX-p-p, we believe RHO would have pulled, and they would have ended up with the same score in the same or similar contract" or "they thought the UI meant 'now what was our response structure here?'" or whatever. But if you ask the players, especially if they are of significantly different playing strength than you (either way! It's not just the Experts!), you might be surprised at what the UI says *to them*. And even if you are a peer of the doubler (especially at the level I guess that you are, Jillybean), just the fact that you are a director and have had to investigate X potential use of UI cases means that your idea of what it shows can be - shall we say "more nuanced"? - than players who don't direct.

Which is why I'd be interested, were I awm, to hear what the pollees thought the slow pass meant, or whether that was directors' opinion, or. And why I mentioned that there is a strong push in the ACBL in the last few years to poll that information, rather than rely on "director's instinct", if it's at all unclear. In "continuing education", they posited a Hesitation Blackwood call in a National event, and the consensus was that we should poll what the UI meant (as well as LAs, ...). We're talking that level of "at all unclear".

5. Finally, you and those you consult with might decide that pass is an LA and pulling was demonstrably suggested by partner's actions including the slow pass. Now, you probably have to go poll the other hand, after 1NT-X-p!-p; XX-p-p. As I have mentioned in this thread, you might find that peers of opener's RHO will think about pulling, but decide it's too early and they may be running first; but will auto-pull the known blood redouble. Or enough of them do that you're in split-score territory. Or...

a) One thing people have told me is that frequently it's easier for players, especially Flight-B players, to think with cards in their hands. So I tend to keep a sorted deck around to build hands from. Frequently if there's a spare table, I bring the pollees over to it and actually lay out the auction, with the cards in their hands. But on a sheet of paper usually works well.
b) If the explanation was the usual (but highly incorrect) "forces redouble", then you probably go with that, because one of the things you want to find out is "are the peers going to ask 'then what'? Do they know that that *usually*, but not always, means 'start of a runout'?" and the like. If they ask, of course, you give the correct explanation, but you note that in the poll as well...
c) You'll find, with the more experienced players, and the more experienced pollees, that they'll be looking for why you are asking. The Flight-Cs are so scared of "getting it wrong" that you have to cater to that ("there are no wrong answers, I just want to know how *you* think, because the player in question thinks like you, not like me"), the Flight-Bs have no idea why they're being asked anything, but the Flight-As know what's going on and are looking for the "so, partner tanked over the pass, did he?" So you ask about options on *every* call, just so they can't necessarily jump to the right conclusion before you get your answers.
d) You definitely record everything you get as soon after the poll as you can; but if you're one of those people who can write quick notes and hold a conversation at the same time (or you're a former secretary with 60wpm shorthand) immediately is better.