[Fluffy]

In a competitive situation a player makes a call and rushes for toilet just when his LHO competes further to the 4 level.

Now partner of the player absent takes a very long tank before passing. Absent player comes back from toilet unaware. Is he subject to UI?

[shyams]

No

[gordontd]

Law 16C1 begins "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information..." [my emphasis]. In your case the player hasn't received the UI.

[barmar]

I wouldn't expect the partner to make any call until the player returns to the table. The time he took is not considered a break in tempo, because the tempo clock should stop when there's a player missing.

[gwnn]

??

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2016-May-17, 02:36, said:

In a competitive situation a player makes a call and rushes for toilet just when his LHO competes further to the 4 level.Now partner of the player absent takes a very long tank before passing. Absent player comes back from toilet unaware. Is he subject to UI?

gordontd, on 2016-May-17, 04:37, said:

Law 16C1 begins "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information..." [my emphasis]. In your case the player hasn't received the UI.

A similar interesting case is when you're involved in a tempo-sensitive slam-auction, where partner's screen-mate has an unexpected but genuine problem, that he takes several minutes to solve. Now you are in receipt of spurious unauthorised information but risk being penalised, if you act on it. Perhaps you could successfully argue that partner is known to keep to an even tempo, so he's unlikely to be responsible for the delay.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2016-May-17, 11:17, said:

A similar interesting case is when you're involved in a tempo-sensitive slam-auction, where partner's screen-mate has an unexpected but genuine problem, that he takes several minutes to solve. Now you are in receipt of spurious unauthorised information but risk being penalised, if you act on it. Perhaps you could successfully argue that partner is known to keep to an even tempo, so he's unlikely to be responsible for the delay.

This little scenario seems contrived & fantastic, even for you Nigel!

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-May-17, 11:17, said:

A similar interesting case is when you're involved in a tempo-sensitive slam-auction, where partner's screen-mate has an unexpected but genuine problem, that he takes several minutes to solve. Now you are in receipt of spurious unauthorised information but risk being penalised, if you act on it. Perhaps you could successfully argue that partner is known to keep to an even tempo, so he's unlikely to be responsible for the delay.

Don't most jurisdictions have a clause that says that when screens are in use there's usually no UI from a delay in passing the board, because you can't tell which player on the other side caused the delay. And to prevent UI from the board coming back too soon if both players bid quickly, they're supposed to hold up passing the board.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-May-17, 11:40, said:

Don't most jurisdictions have a clause that says that when screens are in use there's usually no UI from a delay in passing the board, because you can't tell which player on the other side caused the delay. And to prevent UI from the board coming back too soon if both players bid quickly, they're supposed to hold up passing the board.

Barmar knows the law better than I. My contention is based on a vague recollection of a thread on Bridgewinners about an appeal, also discussed here, with a hesitation of several minutes in a slam-auction, where most commentators accused Balicki-Zmudski of using UI.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2016-May-17, 11:24, said:

This little scenario seems contrived & fantastic, even for you Nigel!

Perhaps Gordon might express his incredulity in different words Anyway, I accept that Gordon hasn't met such a case, as director. Charles Outred assures me that he's been involved in such incidents.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-May-17, 11:40, said:

Don't most jurisdictions have a clause that says that when screens are in use there's usually no UI from a delay in passing the board, because you can't tell which player on the other side caused the delay. And to prevent UI from the board coming back too soon if both players bid quickly, they're supposed to hold up passing the board.

While that is true in theory Barry, in pracise there are many auctions where it is absolutely obvious that only one of the players on the other side could have a problem and that the delay is almost certainly down to them. Nigel's scenario would obviously be an unusual exception to that.

[gwnn]

I think I misread the opening post when I first was here. Has the toilet guy's RHO bid when he came back or not yet?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-18, 07:48, said:

While that is true in theory Barry, in pracise there are many auctions where it is absolutely obvious that only one of the players on the other side could have a problem and that the delay is almost certainly down to them. Nigel's scenario would obviously be an unusual exception to that.

Which is why I said "usually".

Was that slam auction competitive, or have the opponents been silent throughout until the hesitation in question? If they've been silent, you'll likely assume that any hesitation is from partner. Could someone find the screen regulations that say how this should be handled? It certainly feels wrong that the partner of the player who didn't break tempo should be constrained.

[Fluffy]

gwnn, on 2016-May-18, 07:54, said:

I think I misread the opening post when I first was here. Has the toilet guy's RHO bid when he came back or not yet?

Yes when he comes back it is his turn again.

[gwnn]

So in what conceivable universe could there be UI, or AI, or any "I" other than the auction so far and (perhaps less relevant to bridge) some bathroom notes he read carved on the wall? I am guessing that you got a terrible ruling and you are doing a sanity check?

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2016-May-19, 02:46, said:

So in what conceivable universe could there be UI, or AI, or any "I" other than the auction so far and (perhaps less relevant to bridge) some bathroom notes he read carved on the wall? I am guessing that you got a terrible ruling and you are doing a sanity check?

Well if (s)he turned round before leaving the room it might be possible. Another interesting situation would develop when the opps called the TD to query the situation and the player came back before the call was resolved.

[gwnn]

Fluffy said the player "rushed" to the toilet. Even if they turned round during their rush, all they could see is the first fraction of a second of the "tank", ie no UI, but much more likely, their LHO wouldn't bid during the rush to the toilet.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2016-May-19, 03:39, said:

Fluffy said the player "rushed" to the toilet. Even if they turned round during their rush, all they could see is the first fraction of a second of the "tank", ie no UI, but much more likely, their LHO wouldn't bid during the rush to the toilet.

That rather depends on the size of the room and the difficulty in moving through the tables to the exit, no?

[gwnn]

I appreciate the effort in trying to establish a credible scenario, but rushing to the toilet still means rushing to the toilet. I don't see them paying attention to what's going on at the table even if it comes into their field of vision. It definitely doesn't mean stopping, turning around, figuring out whose turn it is to bid, and waiting for half a minute to establish whether the player is in a long tank.

[blackshoe]

Why are we wasting time speculating on ridiculous and unlikely possibilities? Based on the OP, the player has no UI, end of story.