Law 16 - when is it appropriate for a director to rule without polling logical alternatives ?

MJK43

This is a general question albeit prompted by an actual hand – what are the boundaries around when it is appropriate for a director to make an adjustment under Law 16 based on his own view without polling ?
In particular, following a bid made while in possession of UI gained from a hesitation by the doubler’s partner

Here is the hand which prompts the question.
It is the “strong” weekly pairs run by a local club – on RealBridge. Normal club rules apply about adjustments and corrections, appeals etc.
NS are regular players in the County team and are an AC NGS partnership – similar to about half the pairs playing that night.
It is Red All, dealer N and the auction goes
1H – 1S – X – 2S
P – 4S – P – P
X

The contract goes down 2 after E misplays it – he had the opportunity to go down 1.

It is immediately accepted when put to NS by E that S thought noticeably more than 10 seconds after E’s 4S bid.

Director is called by E and rules straight away that the score should be adjusted to 4S-2 undoubled, asking no questions and taking no polling.

N held
xx
AQxxxx
Axx
Ax

Is it appropriate for director to decide without polling either:
a) the score stands, there was in director’s view no logical alternative to X or that X was not demonstrably suggested by the hesitation
b) the score is adjusted to 4S-2 undoubled as Pass is in director’s view a logical alternative and double was demonstrably suggested by the hesitation
or
c) should the director as is normal at that club when the world plays F2F, say that he will take soundings and decide by the following day ?

Do the answers differ from F2F simply because it is RealBridge ?

Thanks for your advice

Tag

After the jump bid, South was required to pause for 10 seconds, so it's not unreasonable for there to have been a delay of more than 10 seconds in making the pass call. I'd also suggest that, at this level of player, South could have been expected to be more circumspect in how much time he took to pass, since it can be expected to risk limiting partner's options.

One more thing to consider is the meaning of the double by South on the first round. If it denies hearts support and shows general points then North can be considered to be doubling on the strength-encouragement of that double, rather than on any later break in tempo.

My view is that polling of peers, etc, is a tool available to the director, maybe even a guideline, and not a requirement on the director when he believes that the case is clear or he doesn't have the time, available players or, even, inclination to follow through with a polling process. As such, it is appropriate for a director to make a summary ruling and advise players that they may appeal.

gordonrainsford

There may be cases that seem so clear that polling appears unnecessary, but even then it is advisable to consult with someone else. What seems clear to one person many not be to others. The case above does not seem so clear-cut as to not require any polling, though I would not be surprised to discover that a poll found no logical alternative to doubling.

The other question to consider is what is suggested by the slow pass? It seems unlikely that the player was thinking of doubling.

gordonrainsford

@Tag said:
After the jump bid, South was required to pause for 10 seconds, so it's not unreasonable for there to have been a delay of more than 10 seconds in making the pass call.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this.

MJK43

Thank you

N’s thinking, asked subsequently (not by the director) was that he had three aces and his partner had made an unforced bid taking the partnership to the two level, typically for them promising at least a decent 8 count, so had something to contribute to the defence; also that if 4S by EW is making on a maximum of 18 points it will likely be a bad board for NS anyway, 4S doubled making would not be much worse, and +100 for 4S-1 would probably be below 50% as NS could likely make 110 in C, D or H.

As it happens, double would have been the furthest thing from S's mind as he held 2056 with both minors K10xxx, KJ10xxx. He says he was considering 4NT which in context must be "pick a minor".

Tag

@gordonrainsford said:

@Tag said:
After the jump bid, South was required to pause for 10 seconds, so it's not unreasonable for there to have been a delay of more than 10 seconds in making the pass call.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this.

I once tried a short test. I internally did a count of ten seconds. The person with me reckoned it was around 15 seconds, the stop-watch said 12 seconds.

gordonrainsford

@Tag said:

@gordonrainsford said:

@Tag said:
After the jump bid, South was required to pause for 10 seconds, so it's not unreasonable for there to have been a delay of more than 10 seconds in making the pass call.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this.

I once tried a short test. I internally did a count of ten seconds. The person with me reckoned it was around 15 seconds, the stop-watch said 12 seconds.

On RealBridge the counting is done for you.

Frances

Yes, but the counting doesn't go up to 10s. I estimate it as about 5 but I could be wrong.

gordonrainsford

@gordonrainsford said:
The case above does not seem so clear-cut as to not require any polling, though I would not be surprised to discover that a poll found no logical alternative to doubling.

Just amused myself by noticing four negatives in that one sentence!