What action is 'Demonstrably suggested'?
Holding:
AKQ753
3
862
1082
All non-vul
Your RHO passes, you pass (deciding that not quite strong enough to open 1S, but too strong for a multi-2D for a weak S, thinking to catch up later). LHO calls 4H and your partner hesitates (maybe 5-10 secs) and then passes. RHO passes and back to you:
Pass - we pass - 4H - hesitate pass
Pass - ?
What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation?
I have completed a poll, giving the auction without information regarding the hesitation and we are split 50:50 with pass and 4S. 2 people from the club of similar NGS to the table in question were split between emphatic pass and emphatic 4S. A poll on Bridgewinners gives 6 for pass and 6 for 4S.
So, both actions are logical alternatives. Which action should we allow and which action should we not allow, if either?
I see 2 possibilities with the hesitation (over and above any possible carelessness/absentmindedness), partner is thinking about doubling (for their partnership this would be for penalties) and partner is thinking about making a call.
Is this a case where any successful action is barred? So, if we pass and 4H is -1 and 4S does not make, we change the contract to 4S. However, if calling 4S works (making or is a successful sacrifice) then we revert to 4H?
So, is any specific action demonstrably suggested by the hesitation?
When I think about it, I think that the suggested action would be to double - that way if partner was thinking about doubling for penalties, they can pass; if they were thinking about overcalling they could make their overcall. If that is the case, then would that make neither 4S or passing, "demonstrably suggested"?
Comments
I think anything other than passing is suggested by the break in tempo. However I, and probably many of your pollees, are not peers of the player in question because I doubt many people would have passed this hand in the first place. Having done so though, it certainly seems to be that passing at two levels higher must be an LA.
I think that anything other than passing is suggested. But I do not think 5-10s pause over a 4-level opening bid is unauthorised information.
Edit: 5-10s over and above the stop card is unauthorised information.
When I was called to the table, it was agreed by 3 players that there was a hesitation over and above the stop card duration. The partner of the 'hesitater' said that he hadn't noticed one. There was a dispute about how long that was between "significant" and "not that long, but I did hesitate".
So after the 4-level open, is 20 seconds thinking time considered 'normal' and 'in tempo'? That being 10 seconds stop card and a further 10 seconds... Thinking about it, we should maintain a steady tempo in our calls and plays, but this is an unusual situation and so what is their tempo for that situation.
As passing is the only allowed call after a hesitation in this situation, can there be a case where passing is the successful action - 4H makes so doubling would be bad. 4Sx is -3 so is worse than game making etc. So therefore the ops can claim that passing was suggested by the hesitation? If the answer is no, then does this leave hesitating deliberately to stop partner from bidding open to abuse?
10 seconds is a long time and it would be rare for a first-round pause longer than that to be considered normal.
Hesitating deliberately to stop partner from bidding would be considered an infraction.
Hi Martin
If "What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation?" is the main thrust of the thread then maybe we need to check "https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf " By Gordon Rainsford.
Bottom of Page 3
"We might also need to determine what is “demonstrably suggested” by the unauthorised information in a given situation. For that we do need to tell the players with whom we are consulting what the nature of the UI is, and ask
them what they think it suggests. Do still show them just the one hand as sometimes we may think that what is suggested by UI does not match the hand of the player who provided it.
If you need to find out what the LAs are as well as what is suggested by the UI, you should poll first for their choice of call and then you can ask the same player afterwards what they think is suggested by the UI. Remember, the
phrase is “demonstrably suggested”, which is quite a high standard. If they think it could be either one of two quite different things that are suggested, then neither is “demonstrably suggested”."
The white book does mention at 8.16.2 (a) "A hesitation followed by a pass would normally be willing to hear partner
bid on" but I doubt whether this should be used as a guide because neither partner has made a bid to "bid on" from.
So it looks as if you will need to go back to the pollees and find out what they think.
By the way this is interesting as I have often wondered what would/should happen in a 50/50 case (and I mean if the pollees come out 50/50 on what is demonstrably suggested).
Sorry. I understood this to mean there as (only) 5-10s between the 4H bid and partner's pass.
Almost this exact situation (split on what is demonstrably suggested) came up recently in the Pachabo Cup, and ended up changing the eventual winner. The ruling of the appeal was:
_I've polled some peers of the player(s) in question, and the responses were:
3 felt the break in tempo suggested that 5H was more likely to be successful
2 felt the break in tempo suggested that pass was more likely to be successful
1 was on the fence
Law 16B1a
"A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."
The poll results indicate that it is not demonstrably the case that the break-in-tempo suggests that 5H is more likely to be successful, so the 5H call should be allowed; so I am restoring the table result of 5Hx making.
_
The details are on https://bridgewebs.com/cornwall/
Thank you for this Jeremy. I like the phrase "It took a couple of hours for six independent minds to rule in his favour,". Makes you think that the TD either wasn't independant and/or had no say in the ruling, interesting!
This was written by a lay person, so words may not mean the same as directors mean them. Like "bid" for example!