Hesitation - again

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt973hq5djt5c5&w=s82hkj32dk8ckqj87&n=sk65h974dq96ct632&e=s4hat86da7432ca94&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d3spp4hpp4spp5hppp]399|300[/hv]

The first pass by West followed a long hesitation - East called me to the table, explained that there had been a hesitation from her partner, and asked what her options were. I told her that if she had a bid that she would have made had her partner seamlessly passed, then she could make it. She chose to bid 4H - much to my surprise. E/W played to contract in 5H and made 11 tricks. At the end of the hand I told the table that I would be adjusting the score back to 3S making 8 tricks, which ended up giving E/W a bottom board as most N/S's in the room were in 4S making 8 tricks. North initially passed her partner's 3S bid and I felt that the auction would have finished there. I discussed the board and bidding with 2 other senior players after the completion of play and they felt that, given the hesitation, they would not have bid had they been East.

 

Would be happy to hear your opinions. All players were a reasonable standard.

[gordontd]

I'm surprised by the 4H bid, but I would have thought doubling would be quite routine. Rather than discussing the hand with players whom you had told about the hesitation, you should poll players of like standard with just the East hand and no information about the hesitation. You might have found that Pass was an LA but you might well not, and I doubt anyone could argue that 4H was suggested over Double.

 

One further thing, I don't think you should take the contracts in the rest of the room as meaning anything here: North may well have raised 3S to 4S voluntarily to end the auction.

[sanst]

As Gordon wrote, you should have polled.

I'm surprised at East, pointing out that there was a hesitation by W, ethically quite correct, and then making a bid that to me seems to be based on the hesitation. Vulnerable 4♥, overcalling a nonvul 3♠ looks very unwise if you know nothing of your partner's hand. Change the hands of N and W, and 4♥ would result in a complete disaster.

[Chris3875]

Thank you Gordon and sanst for your replies. I should say that I made the score adjustment before looking at what the rest of the field had done and North originally passed the 3S bid by South - my opinion on this hand was that West was the one that should have doubled instead of hesitating and then passing. I think without the 4H bid the auction would have finished at 3S - however, I have put the query here to gather your opinions too. The two senior players I spoke to I considered to be a poll - they both said they would not have bid again after the pass by West. I am not the greatest player in the world so it is issues like this that bring me undone as a director, so am more than happy to listen to what you have to say.

[gordontd]

The two senior players I spoke to I considered to be a poll - they both said they would not have bid again after the pass by West.

You originally said they would not have bid given the hesitation. That is something I often hear but it doesn’t answer the correct question.

[pran]

The very first question asked by the Director in such situations should be:

Did the skip bidder provide for the (mandatory) pause by his LHO?

[sfi]

The very first question asked by the Director in such situations should be:

Did the skip bidder provide for the (mandatory) pause by his LHO?

 

That question is not relevant in Australia.

[pran]

The very first question asked by the Director in such situations should be:

Did the skip bidder provide for the (mandatory) pause by his LHO?

That question is not relevant in Australia.

In that case I would never rule break in tempo against a player who (in my opinion as TD) has a reasonable pause for thought after a skip bid (or in a similar situation).

(And my ruling will never depend on the cards actually held by the pausing player.)

 

Bridge is a game where you are supposed to think before you act.

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt973hq5djt5c5&w=s82hkj32dk8ckqj87&n=sk65h974dq96ct632&e=s4hat86da7432ca94&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d3spp4hpp4spp5hppp]399|300[/hv]

The first pass by West followed a long hesitation - East called me to the table, explained that there had been a hesitation from her partner, and asked what her options were. I told her that if she had a bid that she would have made had her partner seamlessly passed, then she could make it. She chose to bid 4H - much to my surprise. E/W played to contract in 5H and made 11 tricks. At the end of the hand I told the table that I would be adjusting the score back to 3S making 8 tricks, which ended up giving E/W a bottom board as most N/S's in the room were in 4S making 8 tricks. North initially passed her partner's 3S bid and I felt that the auction would have finished there. I discussed the board and bidding with 2 other senior players after the completion of play and they felt that, given the hesitation, they would not have bid had they been East.

 

Would be happy to hear your opinions. All players were a reasonable standard.

 

I doubt that very much

[barmar]

In that case I would never rule break in tempo against a player who (in my opinion as TD) has a reasonable pause for thought after a skip bid (or in a similar situation).

(And my ruling will never depend on the cards actually held by the pausing player.)

 

Bridge is a game where you are supposed to think before you act.

The OP says "long hesitation". I think we're all taking that to mean longer than a "reasonable pause for thought" that's recommended after a skip bid.

 

I can't even see what West had to think about. His partner opened, and he has an opening hand. A negative double seems totally obvious. If they don't play them at the 3 level for some reason, then 4♣. You'd have to put a gun to my head to make me pass with that hand. But I guess this is all irrelevant to the ruling -- for some reason West did pass, now we have to deal with it.

 

However, it's not clear that East's 4♥ is an infraction. Suppose the LAs are Pass, Double, and 4♥. While the hesitation presumably implies values, which suggests not passing, I don't see how it demonstrably suggests 4♥.

 

Although if you think the choice is between passing and acting, the hesitation suggests acting, and we might rule any action is prohibited by the UI.

[Cyberyeti]

What would a double of 3♠ by east have been ?

 

I think 3♠ will make 7 tricks most of the time, the defence will find the diamond ruff often enough that at least part of 7 tricks should be awarded if weighted rulings are allowed.

[barmar]

What would a double of 3♠ by east have been ?

It's hard for me to imagine any meaning other than takeout.

 

Also hard to imagine West leaving it in, but we've already seen that he doesn't know how to bid (I assume this is what eagles meant by his comment).

[gordontd]

Suppose the LAs are Pass, Double, and 4♥. While the hesitation presumably implies values, which suggests not passing, I don't see how it demonstrably suggests 4♥.

 

Although if you think the choice is between passing and acting, the hesitation suggests acting, and we might rule any action is prohibited by the UI.

Continuing this reasoning, I think Double is suggested over Pass, 4♥ is suggested over Pass, but 4♥ is not suggested over Double.

[steve2005]

How in the world can West pass with an opening bid?

East has support for both unbid suits, surely only pass or double are possible bids. With pass being most likely.

[pran]

The OP says "long hesitation". I think we're all taking that to mean longer than a "reasonable pause for thought" that's recommended after a skip bid.

I don't buy that argument.

From my experience (as TD) any pause longer than some 3 seconds is claimed by players in situations like this to be "long hesitation".

 

Try it out for yourself: 5 seconds without anything happening feels like a tremendous amount of time.

[blackshoe]

Although if you think the choice is between passing and acting, the hesitation suggests acting, and we might rule any action is prohibited by the UI.

We do that. I've never been sure we really should.

[Cyberyeti]

It's hard for me to imagine any meaning other than takeout.

 

Also hard to imagine West leaving it in, but we've already seen that he doesn't know how to bid (I assume this is what eagles meant by his comment).

 

The number is diminishing but I still see cards that say takeout doubles only apply up to 3♥

[lamford]

All players, except West, North and East, were a reasonable standard.

FYP

[sfi]

In that case I would never rule break in tempo against a player who (in my opinion as TD) has a reasonable pause for thought after a skip bid (or in a similar situation).

(And my ruling will never depend on the cards actually held by the pausing player.)

 

Bridge is a game where you are supposed to think before you act.

 

The laws don't say you are supposed to think before you act. But they do say you should act in tempo, and prescribe potential rectifications when the other side is damaged by not doing so. Just because your jurisdiction has mandated pauses in certain situations to give players extra time doesn't mean you get to not follow the laws when the regulations elsewhere are different.

[sfi]

However, it's not clear that East's 4♥ is an infraction. Suppose the LAs are Pass, Double, and 4♥. While the hesitation presumably implies values, which suggests not passing, I don't see how it demonstrably suggests 4♥.

 

Although if you think the choice is between passing and acting, the hesitation suggests acting, and we might rule any action is prohibited by the UI.

 

4H isn't a LA for any reason other than it was bid at the table. I am deeply suspicious of the E-W actions on this hand given West's pass to 4H. Dealer's normal hand for this auction would be something like

 

-

AQTxx

AQJTxxx

x

 

where 6H rolls home. That being said, as a director I can't rule against them for suspicions alone. If a poll of East's peers suggests pass is a LA, I would rule as the director did. If not, I would let the table score stand since all auctions that continue with a double look like they lead to 4H or 5H.

 

(All this assumes E-W don't have relevant unusual agreements.)

[pran]

The laws don't say you are supposed to think before you act. But they do say you should act in tempo, and prescribe potential rectifications when the other side is damaged by not doing so. Just because your jurisdiction has mandated pauses in certain situations to give players extra time doesn't mean you get to not follow the laws when the regulations elsewhere are different.

In contrast to other Mindsports like Chess and Go, Bridge is a comparatively new game [...]

(my emphasizing)

so the laws consider as a fact that Bridge is a mindsport (where you are supposed to think before you act).

 

And nowhere in the laws do they say that you should act in (unchanging) tempo. (I am fully aware of Law 73 D).

Instead

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

So it is perfectly acceptable for a player to vary his tempo so long as the variation (i.e. hesitation or haste) is not undue.

 

This obviously includes hesitations following an unexpected action by another player.

(Which is essentially what we are discussing here.)

[sfi]

I think both of the points you are trying to make rely on an unwonted interpretation of the wording you quote. But I think this diversion has more than run its course already.

[cherdano]

How can double by East by automatic in a partnership where West did not double 3S? If you don't know what double means, then passing seems obviously a logical alternative.

[barmar]

I don't buy that argument.

From my experience (as TD) any pause longer than some 3 seconds is claimed by players in situations like this to be "long hesitation".

 

Try it out for yourself: 5 seconds without anything happening feels like a tremendous amount of time.

That may be true, but I expect the TD to determine the actual facts, and not waste our time posting about it if the hesitation was the expected delay after a skip bid.

[sanst]

I don't buy that argument.

From my experience (as TD) any pause longer than some 3 seconds is claimed by players in situations like this to be "long hesitation".

 

Try it out for yourself: 5 seconds without anything happening feels like a tremendous amount of time.

You have missed the first line of the OP: "The first pass by West followed a long hesitation - East called me to the table, explained that there had been a hesitation from her partner,..". So not the opps, but the partner said that there was a hesitation. Maybe you're right not to accept a claim of the opponents at first sight, but I will believe a partner who says so.