Ethics Take

[blackshoe]

I consider him to be "owed" this time if 3rd hand bids too quickly.

 

Yeah. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the law to support this idea.

[ggwhiz]

I consider him to be "owed" this time if 3rd hand bids too quickly.

 

I may be mistaken but vaguely recall situations where this kind of thing has been given weight by the Committee in NABC casebooks.

 

Similar to 1♠ - 5♥ - ?? where a longer than usual pause was deemed to be normal.

 

Interesting if a Director is or is not able to rule initially on that reasoning.

[kenrexford]

Interesting discussion.

 

In thinking back through the situation, I can probably state that the problem was compounded terribly.

 

1. The 2♠ opening did not have a stop card placed on the table. I (in apparent breach?) never do that. (I do, however, have a ridiculously neurotic tempo purity practice.)

 

2. The 4♥ call was extremely rapid, which did deprive my RHO of 10 seconds, but that 10 seconds would have been somewhat less useful to RHO, as RHO would have no idea where LHO might be about to go.

 

3. My CHO also speedy-bid 4♠, also after no stop card was used by the way, which deprived RHO of time to think, as well. Now, RHO is down 20 seconds of time that should have been available.

 

4. RHO's pass is reasonable, in doubt.

 

5. LHO's 5♥ call was questionable, in the sense that the known scores established that a sizeable percentage of the field did otherwise. However, without any tempo problems, LHO should have been free to take the best action in LHO's mind.

 

In this context, the question seems to be whether RHO's delay was a noticeable hesitation in context, one that exceeded normal thought. Given the facts as presented, RHO was stuck. However, there is another part of the story that is only mildly suggested by the story.

 

RHO, CHO, and LHO all rapid-fire easy bids all the time.

 

It is my contention that taking the normal 10 seconds is an undue hesitation is the person never takes the normal 10 seconds except when there is a problem. You cannot easily remedy rapid-fire passes. However, a practice of rapid-fire passes creates the tempo "standard" against which the hesitation is analyzed. The "standard" cannot be an enforceable and just rule unless normal practice for that person is considered OR procedural penalties are assessed.

 

In the end, only two reasonable results seem fair, IMO. Adjust the score, on the theory that the hesitation was person-specific lengthy. Or, assess procedurals for that pair (and for my partnership because of my CHO) every time a rapid-fire no-hesitation call is made after a skip. And, maybe I and my LHO shoudl get another PP for not using the stop card?