Join Bridge Winners
Return of the Double Shot?

In an event at the NABC, a player called the director at the completion of play.  She stated that there had been a break in tempo (not noted or acknowledged at the time), and that the hand that became dummy had chosen an action suggested by the alleged BIT.  The director accepted this argument and did a poll of players.  The result was that four of the five players would not have chosen dummy's action.

When our team objected, the screening director said that we might get an appeal without merit if we pursued it.  When we did so anyway, the committee of directors found the poll result to be decisive.

My concern in this is not with our score, but with the system.  Most players prefer the current system of director decisions to the old system of a player committee. Based upon the cases reported, it seems to have worked well.  There are the other usual and interesting issues about the specifics of this hand and auction, but I want to focus on the procedure.  It seems that the top directors think it is OK to wait until after the hand, "because you don't know you are damaged until then."  If we wish them to apply a different standard, someone needs to speak up.

What are your views?

Please select up to 2 choices.

A BIT should be established contremporaneously, perhaps by mutual acknowledgement.
A suggestion that UI might have affected a decision should be made as soon as the hand is now -- in this case, when dummy hit.
It is OK to wait until the end of the hand before calling the director.

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top