Hesitation "guidelines"
I've been thinking of way to improve the way our players approach those situations where a player is clearly having to make a difficult decision.
For a while I've been acknowledging when I've hesitated (by saying "I acknowledge my hesitation" when calling), and asking the partner of a player who has clearly hesitated "do you acknowledge you partner's hesitation?".
I'm thinking of suggesting to everyone that they do this, but I'm wondering if it's OK. Providing I do it every time, asking the opposition shouldn't create UI, but what about my announcing my own? Is my acceptance of UI actually giving (further) UI to my partner?
Is this a good idea (courtesy, no stigma about asking), a bad idea (just going to irritate people and cause arguments), or just plain stupid and or illegal?
Jeremy
Comments
I think it is not a good idea to give a running commentary on your own (or partner's) actions. Although you are addressing your comment to the opponents, it nevertheless is communication with partner and breaks bits of Law 73A+B.
It seems akin to the habit that some have developed of saying "having none" when they fail to follow suit.
I think it's just best to be ready to acknowledge your own side's hesitations if they are noted by anyone else. In a case where you think your partner may have chosen an action suggested by your hesitation, you might call the TD yourself.
Thank you, Robin and Gordon.
Following Gordon's comments if a TD is called how would a TD rule ? My guess is the offending partner's partner's bid is disallowed and the offending side will have to pass throughout...... and the disallowed call become UI to the offenders and AI to the opponents. The only thing this may achieve is that TD does not have to adjust the score and/or take a poll unless there is any further infraction by the offending side. Is that correct ?
Surely the bid cannot be disallowed at the time - once made it is there for good. It's only when the TD considers an adjusted score that it becomes disallowed - and then of course there is no requirement to pass. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
A TD, if called, should proceed as normal. If the TD is greeted at the table by "There's been an agreed hesitation ... " then it merely removes the complication of a disputed hesitation.
There is a basic principle that a TD almost never needs to look at any player's cards until the end of the play of a board, and this is no exception. We cannot know that the partner of the player who hesitated has made a call suggested by the hesitation or what calls might be logical with his hand.
So, as normal, we take what facts we need at this stage and say "Please continue and if anyone has any cause for concern at the end of the play of the hand, please call me back".
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
There's no clear answer which is guaranteed to avoid ire and irritation, Jeremy. I once has a board where my left-hand opponent went into the tank and then made a bid. I said to RHO, "Do you acknowledge your partner's hesitation?". This did not go down well, as I received, in a rather aggrieved tone, the response "It doesn't matter. She made a bid". This turned into a TD call and I got a 'phone call the next day telling me not to annoy players by asking about hesitations in the middle of the auction.
One of the key points here one needs to understand the difference between hesitation and bidding in tempo. As an example, I have a regular partner who takes forever to bid on anything other than pass. His tempo is much longer than anyone else in the club but it is his tempo. If anyone would ask me if I acknowledged his hesitation I would merely state "He bids slow and I take no inference from it in any manner. I only look at his bid and access it against our bidding system."
Not from the TD, I hope.
From the Club's Chief TD. I was actually TD on the night and was told that I should know better. I called him over to be acting TD for the hesitation and ensuing situation, since acrimony had arisen at my table. Of course, I explained that I had raised the issue at the appropriate moment.
You may not have a problem when this partner takes a long time and then makes some positive noise. But I wouldn't mind betting that some of his passes are considerably slower than others. If he has a balanced Yarborough he will probably pass rather more quickly than his normal tempo. If he has a borderline hand for some other action, I guess he will pass in more like his normal tempo (i.e. he will take "forever"). The difference between the two is UI which constrains your actions.
In response to the original question, I must dare to disagree with Robin & Gordon. I am not arguing about what the Laws say, but on what I believe we should be doing.
Everyone at the table needs to recognise that bdding out of tempo happens, and when the other side point this out, way too many tempo situations generate antagonism. This is clearly unacceptable if we play this game to enjoy it.
The only way I see to avoid this is to get into the habit of acknowledging my break-in-tempo before it becomes an issue. Yes it could be UI to partner, but it is extremely unlikely that it is, and if it is we avoid the argument about whether or not partner had this UI anyway; and partner is more likely to behave as the Laws require.
I take it a step further, especially in a competitive auction, and offer "I acknowledge my partner's hesitation", which tends to avoids any tension at the table.
If I feel the need to ask for acknowledgement that an opponent's action was slow, I tend to avoid the use of the word "hesitation". "Do you agree that your partner took a long time to pass?" tends to go down better. Some people seem to find unnecessarily negative connotations in the word "hesitation".
The classic response to a TD's enquiry is "I may have thought a bit about it but I certainly didn't hesitate"!
Another classic response is "I wasn't hesitating, but what would YOU have bid with my hand?"
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I was accused of hesitation at a club night. I felt I did nothing out of the ordinary in thinking and then passing.
My accuser was a former club chairman, teacher and top player. I am an average player.
There is no clock or timer so this is always going to be subjective, yet the feeling (no ruling was applied). Was he must be right. My p overcalled his bid and we got the same contract and score as 3 other pairs.
There needs to be an objective way of deciding and not leaving it to one aggrieved player.
I still have a nasty taste in the mouth over this. It felt as if I was being accused of cheating.
Hesitating is perfectly legal (unless you do it to intentionally mislead your opponents, or as part of a prearranged signal with your partner; if you unintentionally mislead your opponents, that'll also cause an adjustment, but isn't cheating). What's illegal is to fail to do the opposite of what your partner suggests. So if people perceive you as hesitating, they should get annoyed with your partner if they think there's been a rule breach, not you.
One of the problems here, and it's not uncommon, is that you feel "accused". The player should really ask your partner whether he acknowledges the hesitation. If partner declines to acknowledge it then either they let it go or they call the TD to resolve the alleged hesitation. Note that, as ais523 states, the onus is on your partner to avoid taking advantage of any information given by a break in tempo. You are merely an innocent bystander who just happened, or not, to break tempo.
I don't like the word "accusation" - If the former club chairman asked your partner "Do you agree there was a hesitation in your partner's response?" then that is not an accusation - the laws quite clearly state that hesitating (or indeed any varying of tempo) is not an infraction (other than as ais523 qualifies). In fact all a player has to do is to announce that he reserves his rights to call the TD (and it is then up to the other side to call the TD then if they don't agree,) (The EBU recommend the TD is called rather than rights are reserved, but this is not a requirement)
To make it clear: hesitating per se is definitely NOT cheating. Bridge is a thinking game and thinking takes time. An average player won't have come accross certain situations as often as a very good player or know quickly what to do. However your opponents do have the right to ensure that your partner does not take advantage of the hesitation, or obtain redress if he does. An opponent calling the TD should also never be regarded as an unfriendly act. There are strict rules in the game even if in a club they are sometimes not strictly enforced (which can cause problems when a situation does arrive when the TD is needed).
Thank you, all three, for you comments.
But none of this avoids the issue of the request to one's partner being totally subjective. He is in no better postion to adjudge than the opponent. Nor is a TD who has not observed the auction.
The Law may be appropriate at the highest leveks of bridge where players are all of the same high stature and all can view it dispassaionately.
But at a club evening where pairs of all levels are playing for the better players to call out the average players for hesitation amounts, and I speak plainly, an attempt at intimidation.
I am not one of those players who slaps down the pass card instantly I see a Yarborough in my hand. I take my normal tempo to pass and so my normal tempo to think - and then pass - with a marginal bidding hand is normal . In a pick-up partnership, which it was, my partner cannot know. Nor can he imagine any way of taking advantage either.
This incident took place on a Club evening where the better players are competing. Average players are few in number with the result that the number of tables is in decline while the evening for the rest is bulging at the seams with tables. Players are being asked to step across into the arena where the culture is seen as 'intimidating'.
Such incidents as I experienced are no encouragement for me to suggest my fellow average players join in.
Bid out of turn, play out of turn, revokes are all objectively 'measured' and raise no issues. Supposed 'hesitation' cannot be established objectively and ought to be treated with the utmost caution. Which it wasn't in my case.
Most newcomers to more-advanced sessions have been in your situation and the intimidation factor is quite real, as you're experiencing. The play is often significantly faster-paced in those games than in the typical weaker sessions and players who wish to step up to them usually find that they have to up their pace, as they move from a typical 24-board session to playing 27 boards or even 30. Normal thinking time in a weaker session is now seen as excessive in the stronger sessions and provokes calls for hesitation.
Yes, hesitation is often subjective and when you have something to think about it's very hard to keep track of the time you're expending. What's worse is that you and your partner have nothing concrete with which to refute the allegations of a break in tempo.
Over time, what tends to happen is that the weaker players get stronger and faster and the more-experienced players get used to their faces and become a little more tolerant of their pace. Some players will drop out and decide that it's not for them but many will simply step up to the challenge of the harder game. It takes time for new faces to fit in. It can also be somewhat frustrating when the stronger players themselves take a little extra time over a bid and you find yourself wondering why they can get away with it.
To some extent, it's a social problem but it's also a problem arising from the situation that the weaker players often don't realise that they've clearly paused for thought and then taken no relevant action or, equally, paused for thought and then made some manner of invitational or sign-off bid, often suggesting that they were thinking of some other action. Over time, the weaker players come to realise that they must think ahead on certain hands, to avoid putting partner on the spot of having to pass when they might have bid on or doubled. After a little more time, they find themselves getting frustrated at the pace and the pauses of the next batch of people coming up through the ranks.