| S c o t t i s h B r i d g e U n i o n | ||||
|
Laws and Ethics Forum: January 2010 Hesitations In an ideal world bridge players would make all their bids and plays in uniform tempo, without expression or remark. In our less than ideal world we must accept that hesitations in the auction and play are an inevitable part of our game. If you make a bid designed to make life hard for your opponents, you must expect them to take a little time to decide what best to do. That is why there is a compulsory 10 second pause over jump bids: this gives a player time to recover from an unexpected call and to decide how to cope with it. When a player takes an inordinately long time over a bid, or makes it clear by his manner that he has a problem, and finally emerges with a Pass, or a Double, he gives his partner an ethical dilemma. Many players believe that in such a situation a player has no alternative but to pass, and may become quite upset if he bids. But the ‘must pass’ interpretation is too simplistic: if, for example, the Pass is systemically forcing, then partner must bid; and if passing would be illogical partner should bid. What he must not do is choose, from any number of possible actions, one that might be suggested by the hesitation. Law 16 – ‘Authorized and Unauthorized Information’ – explains the situation 16.B Extraneous Information from Partner 1 (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the extraneous information. (b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. A recent ruling illustrates the point. West held:
He passed as dealer, and heard 3♠ on his left, followed by two passes. His re-opening double was passed out, and he collected a useful 1100. Is his double ethical if his partner has hesitated over 3♠? Only if there are no logical alternative actions. Would any players consider passing? Or bidding 4D? If ‘a significant proportion’ would consider these alternative actions would any actually choose them? In this case the answer to these questions is surely ‘No’. So West’s double is allowed to stand. Suppose the hand were significantly weaker - remove the king of diamonds. Now Pass would surely be the choice of some players, so it becomes a logical alternative. Since the hesitation suggests that double would be a good idea a TD would rule the action back to 3S undoubled. Or make the hand slightly different, say -
Now 4♦ is a logical alternative, and some might consider a Pass. After the slow pass West should not choose to double since that is the bid suggested by the hesitation. |