Break in tempo

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hakjt93dk93cqt4&w=skj985h654dj82ck2&n=sqt4hq872dt4cj875&e=sa632hdaq765ca963&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1d1h1s2h3s4hp(BiT)p4s(Director%21)ppp]399|300|Agreed hesitation by West over South's 4H.[/hv]

 

All average club players. IMPs. When I arrived, East agreed to partner's hesitation but added the common "I was always going to bid 4♠. Here, look at my hand." I declined the offer, told them to play it out and then call me back IF THEY WISHED. I forgot to find out whether 1♠ showed 5. Suspect this pair did not make that distinction.

 

Looked at the hand record. East seems to have an easy 4♠ first time. Note however that there is a set of players who sometimes bid like this. Their jumps are almost forcing. They might bid 3♠ then 4♠ when partner failed to act over 4♥. "I didn't want to let them play 4♥." To what extent am I required to get inside their heads, to think as they do? (No peers available)

 

Anyway, while they were playing I decided to wind back to 4♥ passed out, though there is a case for allowing East to double 4♥. (However, West's hesitation may indicate a desire to penalise, making double by East more attractive) Also had to decide how likely it was for East to lead a low club at trick 2. These finer points could wait so I hovered a couple of tables away till they completed the play. I caught South's attention and gave her a quizzical look. She looked at her partner and they both shook their heads, so I walked away. Is that acceptable?

 

We all use our own words but I find these rulings difficult to express, since I'm about to tell East she is being unethical. I was going to say "Change the contract to 4♥/S making 9 tricks. When you bid only 3♠ first time, you can't then bid 4♠ when partner hesitates."

 

Maybe "shouldn't" instead of "can't". If pressed I would add "Partner's hesitation makes it more attractive for you to act, therefore you shouldn't"

 

Some directors prefer the formal, legal approach. "You partner's agreed break in tempo has conveyed Unathorised Information to you, that partner was considering acting over 4♥. When in receipt of UI, the Laws require you to choose - from Logical Alternatives - one that was not suggested by partner's break in tempo. Pass is a Logical Alternative, therefore I'm adjusting to 4♥/S making 9 tricks."

 

Which approach and which words do you use? Does you approach vary with the standard of the players?

[Cascade]

I don't think you need to suggest someone is being unethical.

 

It is certainly possible to be ruled against and to have tried to be ethical. There is a standard that you must meet for your bid when UI suggests taking a certain action. The player and then the director and then the appeal committee if necessary need to judge where that boundary is. It is certainly possible for a player to misjudge while being mindful of their ethical responsibilities.

 

As a hand waving explanation I like to tell players that they must go out of their way to avoid taking advantage of the UI. That is pretty much what L73 says - 'carefully avoid taking advantage'. Then you can give a more technical definition regarding logical alternatives and say that you need to make a judgement and on this occasion you have judged that pass is a logical alternative or whatever.

[peachy]

The formal legal approach that you give at the end of your post serves well. It can be delivered in a friendly manner and there is no need to even bring out any question of ethics. it is all from the book and from the TD's determination of what the UI could suggest (pretty clear hear: action) and what the LAs are. L73 is broad, start from there. Then go into the details.

 

Edit: Just noticed Cascade said it already.

[lamford]

East seems to have an easy 4♠ first time. Note however that there is a set of players who sometimes bid like this. Their jumps are almost forcing.

I agree it is tough, but for this class of player, playing these methods, pass may not be a logical alternative. You have to try to find peers, or try to think like a peer of the player. The only two LAs, in my view, are 4S and double. Partner did not double 4H, and that is authorised, so it seems hard to regard 4S as demonstrably suggested. And, in my experience, all poor players - and some good players, play that 1S promises five cards. And given that Kxxxx xxx xxx xx makes 4S good, I cannot agree with passing out 4H undoubled. But then I cannot agree with 3S the previous round, so I guess I cannot think like a peer of the player.

 

But as for choosing the right words, yours seem fine. The error was in the substance not the form.

[AlexJonson]

East will have considered pass and 4S over 4H - he could not have done otherwise. Pass was an option.

 

Was it a logical alternative in the terms of the Laws of Bridge? Probably not.

 

Perhaps a lucky escape for EW.

[Bbradley62]

All average club players... (No peers available)

Was this a bi-modal game with only experts and beginners in addition to one average pair?

I caught South's attention and gave her a quizzical look. She looked at her partner and they both shook their heads, so I walked away. Is that acceptable?

No, it is not acceptable to tell one pair "I'm on your side".

Maybe "shouldn't" instead of "can't".

No. Rules are about "can" and "can't", not "shouldn't".

... for this class of player, playing these methods, pass may not be a logical alternative.

I completely agree with this. For an "average club player" holding 3 aces opposite a partner who made a free bid, pass is not an option. If you are someplace where weighted results are allowed, I would split 4♠ and double 50/50.

[ggwhiz]

There is no question in my mind that the statement "I was always bidding 4♠" is an honest one. If you have to roll back such a bid it's easy enough to state that followed by a "however" and an education as to the laws.

 

In this case peers WERE consulted in the form of the opponents who declined to call you back for a ruling and I see no reason for a non-peer Director type to interfere.

[shevek]

Was this a bi-modal game with only experts and beginners in addition to one average pair?

No, it is not acceptable to tell one pair "I'm on your side".

No. Rules are about "can" and "can't", not "shouldn't".

I completely agree with this. For an "average club player" holding 3 aces opposite a partner who made a free bid, pass is not an option. If you are someplace where weighted results are allowed, I would split 4♠ and double 50/50.

 

Polling peers would have taken a while. Swiss teams, 8 board rounds, 48 minutes on the clock. I would have to wait till certain pairs played this board, grabbed a few dummies for their views. We score up quickly (bridgepads) so the next draw is out immediately.

 

Didn't seem to me that I was telling N-S I was about to rule in their favour. Just that they were the ones who would call for redress so I kept them in view.

 

This is Australia (so currently outside US) therefore weighted scores are okay, however usually need a panel of directors for that. In 4♥/x, also need to weight the chance for East to underlead ♣A at trick 2.

[mycroft]

If you do give a split score, giving any of 4♠ is a Reveley ruling, and illegal at least in EBU - unless you think that West is going to bid 4♠ after East doubles. You can split 4H/4Hx, but you can't give a piece of the disallowed call.

 

My response to "I was always bidding X" was "well, then why didn't you last round?" There's usually a reason, and it's usually not convincing. Here, there's a thought that he might get to play 3♠ - but I bet he was just being lazy. And when you get lazy, partner can pooch you with UI.

 

There's an argument that pass is not an LA - with three bullets, a "bad" break and a partner-that-bid. There's an argument that there is no LA to 4♠ - it might go down, but you're not getting rich off 4♥.

 

To answer the original question, I avoid the E word, unless I am explicitly discussing an ethical situation. This was just potential use of UI - we all do it occasionally, and sometimes in all best attempt to avoid it, we fail. Sometimes, even, we succeed, but the Law says the TD has to rule otherwise anyway. So "Unfortunately, once your partner gives you unauthorized information that he's stronger than he may be, you are restricted from making a call that will work out better with more strength if there's another call that is reasonable; and <evidence that your alternative is Logical>. It doesn't matter what you 'always would have done'; if you don't want to be restricted, either do it right away, or get your partner to bid in tempo." Along with, if necessary, "Yes, bridge is a thinking game, but one of the things you choose to do when you choose to think abnormally is to put your partner under obligations."

[bluejak]

Looked at the hand record. East seems to have an easy 4♠ first time. Note however that there is a set of players who sometimes bid like this. Their jumps are almost forcing. They might bid 3♠ then 4♠ when partner failed to act over 4♥. "I didn't want to let them play 4♥." To what extent am I required to get inside their heads, to think as they do? (No peers available)

Much as polls are nice, they are not the whole story: you have to decide what you think the peers of this player might do. If you are deciding what constitutes an LA, and you believe for this type of player pass is not even being considered, then pass is not an LA.

 

Anyway, while they were playing I decided to wind back to 4♥ passed out, though there is a case for allowing East to double 4♥. (However, West's hesitation may indicate a desire to penalise, making double by East more attractive) Also had to decide how likely it was for East to lead a low club at trick 2. These finer points could wait so I hovered a couple of tables away till they completed the play. I caught South's attention and gave her a quizzical look. She looked at her partner and they both shook their heads, so I walked away. Is that acceptable?

Sure: if people withdraw a request for a ruling, that is fine, except perhaps where beginners or bad behaviour is concerned.

 

We all use our own words but I find these rulings difficult to express, since I'm about to tell East she is being unethical. I was going to say "Change the contract to 4♥/S making 9 tricks. When you bid only 3♠ first time, you can't then bid 4♠ when partner hesitates."

You certainly must not suggest that East is being unethical, nor is there any evidence he is. A failure to follow the UI Laws is only unethical if

 

• the player understands the UI Laws, and
  
• the player definitely realises there was a BIT, and
  
• the player definitely knows there is an LA to his chosen action, and
  
• the player definitely knows he has chosen an action suggested by the UI, and
  
• the player definitely understands his action was illegal
  

This will happen about one time in fifty, and I should not worry about it. But you must make sure your method of telling the players the ruling contains no hint of any suggestion of anything unethical.

[bluejak]

Polling peers would have taken a while. Swiss teams, 8 board rounds, 48 minutes on the clock. I would have to wait till certain pairs played this board, grabbed a few dummies for their views. We score up quickly (bridgepads) so the next draw is out immediately.

So delay the ruling until you have time to poll. Quick judgement rulings tend to be bad judgement rulings.