[VixTD]

From the Seniors Pairs consolation final:

---

I was called at the end of the auction. East claims there was a marked pause for thought by South over 4♥. East West agreed. South admits he thought for a few seconds, but considered the pause to be no longer than would normally be expected in a high-level competitive auction such as this.

Result: 5♥(E)-2, lead ♠A, NS +200

I was called back at the end of play. I asked North why he had bid 4♠ and he said that he has no defence to 4♥ and his partner has a long spade suit.

How would you rule?

[TylerE]

Roll it back to 4♥. Frankly, N has about the MOST defensive hand he could have on this hand, short of a ♠ void or an extra trump. The only possible wrinkle is wether 5♥ is SEWoG. I'm close to feeling that it is... don't sound like NS have more than a 9 card fit, quite possibly 8, so EW may well be off 2 tricks in ♠ alone.

While I would normally be sympathetic to a desire to think, what is there for S to think about? He has already shown his hand, and he has the worst possible distribution.

[Cyberyeti]

TylerE, on 2013-September-17, 11:02, said:

Roll it back to 4♥. Frankly, N has about the MOST defensive hand he could have on this hand, short of a ♠ void or an extra trump. The only possible wrinkle is wether 5♥ is SEWoG. I'm close to feeling that it is... don't sound like NS have more than a 9 card fit, quite possibly 8, so EW may well be off 2 tricks in ♠ alone.

While I would normally be sympathetic to a desire to think, what is there for S to think about? He has already shown his hand, and he has the worst possible distribution.

S was probably thinking that he had AKQ 7th rather than the crap he might have opened on in this seat.

For N, why couldn't partner have ♠AK and with dummy putting a singleton ♥ on the table (or 2♠ so you can overruff) you then have plenty of defence to 4♥. Also how do you fancy this opposite KJ10xxxx and out, this is 800 a lot of the time. If you rule that S did hesitate, it's an easy adjustment to 4♥-1, and I'd be surprised if N bid without the hesitation, so I adjust.

[campboy]

There are lots of high-level competitive situations where a couple of seconds would be normal. Deciding whether to raise your own pre-empt isn't one of them IMO.

[ggwhiz]

The timing of the Director call is appropriate as waiting for the result would be a classic double shot.

The 5♥ bidder has reason to expect at least 1 less spade in his partners hand and the 4♠ bid sufficiently unusual (all D, no O) I would roll it as above tending towards a warning to north instead of a pp since it is the consolation.

[PhilKing]

Hydes where are you?

[gnasher]

I adjust the score to 4♥-1. South's normal tempo for this auction is to pass without thought, so North has UI that South has more playing strength than he might.

Quote

The timing of the Director call is appropriate as waiting for the result would be a classic double shot.

It would be equally, or possibly more, appropriate to wait until you knew what North's hand was. This is permitted by Law, and the non-offenders are entitled to the same ruling regardless of whether they call the director before or after the play.

I don't clearly understand the ACBL's definition of a "double shot", but it obviously can't apply here. By the end of the auction, EW have made all the decisions they have to make, so whether they call now or after the play makes no difference.

Quote

Hydes where are you?

I think this is off-topic, and should be moved to the "Finding teammates in airports" forum.

[VixTD]

It is surely completely normal and appropriate to call the director as soon as North takes action after South has broken tempo, particularly if the hesitation is in any way disputed.

Other than that I'm in full agreement with all the comments made. It was clear to adjust the score to 4♥(E)-1, and I did question whether West's 5♥ bid could be considered wild or gambling. I gave the West hand to a couple of players in the coffee bar (admittedly not Seniors) and asked what they would do. They took some time to think; one of them was considering bidding 5♥, the other was adamant that he was not going to pass.

North-South appealed. They were asked how long South took to pass over 4♥. South (by his own admission a very inexperienced player) said it was about four seconds. North (the very belligerent instigator of the appeal) said "No it wasn't, it was more like eight!". One of the committee members asked what sort of hands South would open 3♠ on in this situation, whether for instance something like ♠QJ109xxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣x would be sufficient, and was told yes, it would.

The committee also considered whether 5♥ was wild or gambling, decided it wasn't, upheld the ruling and returned the deposit because NS were obviously completely clueless. When I gave them the verdict they really couldn't believe anyone would rule against them, or agree with the ruling. They didn't understand that it is not normal to consider further action after pre-empting, and that the North hand is bristling with defence.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2013-September-17, 10:53, said:

From the Seniors Pairs consolation final:
East claims there was a marked pause for thought by South over 4♥. East agreed.

He agreed with himself?

[barmar]

Inexperienced players stop to think in all sorts of random situations where the rest of us would have no problem. If a player often hesitates for no good reason, does a hesitation "demonstrably suggest" anything? Is their partner really constrained to the same extent they would if their partner was experienced, so you can take real inferences from the BIT?

[lamford]

Nothing to add to campboy's or gnasher's posts, other than that North merits a PP for the 4S bid.

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2013-September-18, 10:06, said:

If a player often hesitates for no good reason, does a hesitation "demonstrably suggest" anything?

Even if it only happened once before there is a history that the non offending side can't prove nor should they have to. An unusual action by the partner of the hesitator as in this case is unlikely to be a lucky guess.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-18, 10:26, said:

Even if it only happened once before there is a history that the non offending side can't prove nor should they have to. An unusual action by the partner of the hesitator as in this case is unlikely to be a lucky guess.

So if the player hesitates randomly, his partner is screwed every time he guesses correctly after one of those hesitations?

Note that the Laws don't actually refer specifically to hesitations, they refer to "break in tempo", which means a deviation from the player's normal tempo. If they hesitate frequently, as novices (and some life novices I know) do, then I think their normal tempo is wide ranging. In that case, is a hesitation really a BIT?

[paulg]

barmar, on 2013-September-18, 10:06, said:

Inexperienced players stop to think in all sorts of random situations where the rest of us would have no problem. If a player often hesitates for no good reason, does a hesitation "demonstrably suggest" anything? Is their partner really constrained to the same extent they would if their partner was experienced, so you can take real inferences from the BIT?

I don't think they are random situations. They think when they are not happy with their bidding or they think they are being stolen from, in most situations showing extra values.

Against me, at the local club, they also think when they'd like to psych

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-September-18, 08:21, said:

It is surely completely normal and appropriate to call the director as soon as North takes action after South has broken tempo, particularly if the hesitation is in any way disputed.

This gets interesting.

Quote

Law 16B3, in part: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*. [The emphasis is mine.]

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws, in part: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…

So. It is not an infraction to fail to do what one should do, and it is an infraction to fail to do what one should do. Make up your mind, lawmakers!

Somebody will no doubt argue that the footnote is specific to Law 16B3, and the specific overrides the general. Fair enough, but it would have been simple for the lawmakers to say "should summon the director" and either not specify "when play ends", or better yet, say "should summon the director. It is recommended that this be done when play ends." Not following a recommendation is not an infraction. Not following a "should" is an infraction - except, apparently, when it isn't. The Law is an ass.

[barmar]

I think that footnote is essentially saying that "should" was a typo, they meant to write "may".

[barmar]

paulg, on 2013-September-18, 10:53, said:

I don't think they are random situations. They think when they are not happy with their bidding or they think they are being stolen from, in most situations showing extra values.

Against me, at the local club, they also think when they'd like to psych

My experience is that beginners and novices hesitate when they don't know what to do. Which is most of the time.

I've seen them hesitate at the one level with non-descript hands. And I don't think they even know what psyching is.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-September-19, 13:06, said:

I think that footnote is essentially saying that "should" was a typo, they meant to write "may".

Uh, huh. How much do you want for that bridge?

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-18, 15:48, said:

This gets interesting.

Quote

Law 16B3, in part: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*.

This follows law 16B2 which suggests that players reserve their rights when they consider UI could have been transmitted and damage could result. It goes on to say that the TD should be called if the transmission of UI is disputed, and I think it's generally agreed that the director should be called unless all players agree that UI was transmitted and understand the implications of this. In this particular case the TD should have been called at this point because of the lack of experience of NS, and probably also because of the lack of agreement about the length of the pause.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 06:43, said:

This follows law 16B2 which suggests that players reserve their rights when they consider UI could have been transmitted and damage could result. It goes on to say that the TD should be called if the transmission of UI is disputed, and I think it's generally agreed that the director should be called unless all players agree that UI was transmitted and understand the implications of this. In this particular case the TD should have been called at this point because of the lack of experience of NS, and probably also because of the lack of agreement about the length of the pause.

There is no obligation in the law for any player to ensure that any other player understands the implications of UI. The letter of the law says you simply reserve your rights. Current "best practice" suggests you solicit agreeement that something an opponent did may present UI. If they don't agree, or don't understand what that means, it is up to them to call the TD. Now, if they dispute the question, and refuse to call the TD, I will call and tell the TD there are two problems, one of them an infraction of law. Regarding the infraction (their failure to call the TD when they dispute the provision of UI, I do not expect the TD to do more than issue a warning unless the opponents are well known for this refusal and have had the law explained to them before, but the resolution of both the infraction and the dispute are the TD's purview, not mine. As is any explanation of the implications of the presence of UI.