Hesitation ruling
East: ♠x
♥AKQxxxxx
♦xx
♣Kx
South: ♠J10xxx
♥ -
♦KQ10xx
♣QJx
West:♠KQxx
♥Jx
♦xx
♣A10xxx
North: ♠Axx
♥10xx
♦AJ9x
♣xxx
Best I can do for now layout-wise (the procedure is more important than the exact hands anyway) -
E dealer, EW vul
E: 4C* S: 4D W: pass N: pass**
E: 4H S: 4S W: dbl N: 5D
All pass
*alerted, and explained as a standard 4H opening
**following a pause described by West as "long", acknowledged by North as "I wouldn't have said all that long, but yes I did pause".
West reserved her rights, called the director at the end of the auction and called him back after 5D went one down for 50 to EW. The director took a poll of senior players at the event on how they would have bid the S hand (without knowledge of the pause) and awarded an adjusted result of 4H made by EW.
I fully appreciate that partner's hesitation must not be seen to bear any possible influence on a player's own decisions, and I'm not challenging the director's decision, but there are one or two points which struck me as being of possible relevance:
- I've read a few threads on here where a player's known bidding style has been seen as a significant factor. The South in question is well known (some might say notorious) for an adventurous approach to the auction - could this be seen as relevant? (The director thought not).
- North commented that if 4H had been passed round to her she would have bid 5D so the final contract would have been just the same anyway - is this relevant when considering the final result?
- Finally, could it be argued that West was doing a bit of free-riding in waiting to see how 5D turned out (rather than doubling or bidding 5H) in the hope of being awarded a good score anyway?
As I said, not a challenge, just curiosity as to what a director should take into consideration and under what circumstances.
Sorry about the previous mess-up, and thanks Admin for disposing of it
Comments
In any case where the TD is considering an unauthorised information problem, three questions have to be asked:
1. Was there unauthorised information?
2. Did it suggest demonstrably suggest the action taken?
3. Was there a less successful logical alternative?
Only if the TD answers all three in the affirmative does he adjust the score.
Logical alternatives are assessed in the context of the methods of the partnership. Partners are required to use the same methods although style may vary. Clearly the fact that S bid 4 !d and N initially passed it corroborates the assertion that S is an adventurous bidder. If it had been N who had the UI, then in assessing his logical alternatives one should indeed take account of S's adventurous style.
Here, however, it is S who has the UI. If S had bid 4 !d on a hand which (for him) was much better than it might have been (which is rather a scary thought), then it would be in order to take this into account in assessing his logical alternatives.
Since N had no UI it would not have been an infraction for him to bid 5 !d had 4 !h been passed round to him. The TD must decide what weight to give to this possibility. N obviously knew when he passed 4 !d that the actual auction might be facing him at his next turn, yet chose to pass 4 !d . I don't think I would ever give an offending side anything close to 100% of the benefit of the doubt about whether N would have bid 5 !d , but it is certainly possible to weight an adjusted score on the basis that N would bid 5 !d some of the time. (This is not a "Reveley" ruling - allowing a tainted action some of the time: 5 !d is not tainted as such - it is just that the TD has to decide how plausible a 5 !d bid is for a player who thought it right to pass 4 !d ).
When adjusting the score for an offending side it is possible to make a less-favourable adjustment for the non-offending side under Law 12C1(e) if the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error or a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification. Otherwise, the non-offending side's actions on the actual auction are not under scrutiny, although they may provide evidence of likely actions in a different projected auction when the TD is considering how to adjust the score. A simple decision to "do a bit of free-riding" does not come anywhere near the standard required to deny redress under Law 12C1(e).
Was there UI? Yes - the pause was acknowledged even if its length was disputed.
Did it demonstrably suggest bidding over 4 !h? IMO, clearly. What can N have been thinking of apart from raising? Hardly bidding 4 !s when S holds five of those. 5 !d and 4 !s "on the way" are both demonstrably suggested over Pass.
Was Pass a logical alternative? Again, IMO, clearly. S has made a fairly frisky 4 !d bid which he knew at the time he made it might result in the spades being buried. However adventurous a bidder he is, I think a sufficient proportion of his peers would pass 4 !h had N passed 4 !d without a care in the world. Partner is still there, after all.
I therefore believe that the TD was right to adjust the score. The only question is whether N/S should be given any benefit of the possibility that N would have bid 5 !d . I would be comfortable with a small percentage, say 20%. So I might have ruled 80% of 4 !h making and 20% of the table result.
Did the director find out what South thought the pause suggested? Anyway, I think that the hesitation by North shows some values and since South 'must carefiully avoid' taking advantage of this information (Law 73C) then I think, prima facie, he has to pass. Note that this is NOT part of law 16 (although Law 16 is referenced). If North's pause did not demonstrably suggest South bid 4S then there is no infraction under Law 16 (which is why I quote 73C).
You are certainly correct that you have to take into account the 'class' of bridge player that South is (Law 16B) - however there is no definition of 'class' in the lawbook. Currently we apply this not only to bridge expertise (or lack of it) but to traits e.g. aggressive/ cautious etc. The director should try and poll players 'of the same class' as South - and this means finding very adventurous bidders. It is possible that he polled the wrong players (not unlikely if there is only a small field) - and perhaps he should have asked (when they passed) whether they considered another action (if some less aggressive players considered it, then that would be qualitative evidence that to a hyper-aggressive South there was no alternative to 4S).
(The poll was of 'senior players', which presumably means more cautious ones, and there is no evidence that South is one - to an aggressive less-experienced player 4S does have its attractions. There is a case in the EBU appeals notebooks where a poll was overturned on this exact same argument. I think one of the commentators said "Although being a mature payer we would still have made the same bid without the UI" or WTTE)
The director should indeed consider what the auction would be once the illegal call is removed. (Law 12C). If North states that they would always bid 5D then that has to be considered as part of the result. (This may be self-serving as in the legal auction North has no idea that South has a secondary spade suit - however it is true that East did not have to bid 4H).
West has reserved her rights. I think the double of 4S is reasonable on that spade stack an outside Ace and partner has made a free bid, but obviously cannot double 5D (it is up to their partner) and being Aceless bidding 5H is possibly changing a +ve score for a -ve one. I don't think that passing 5D would count as a 'gambling action' on that hand. Bidding 5H is, IMHO, much more likely to be regarded as being so.
Judgement calls are difficult. To handle them correctly and thoroughly often would take up more time and resources than many directors have (especially as they come to the hand 'cold'). I would assume South was advised of his right to appeal - the appeals process would allow a greater discussion of the circumstances without as much time pressure.
West doesn't have a blindingly obvious penalty double of 5 !d .
In the actual auction E still has another call coming.
It is a competitive auction, where it is far from obvious who is sacrificing against whom.
I cannot conceive of a situation where a pass in such circumstances could ever be even close to meeting the standard required to apply Law12C1(e).
I don't personally think that bidding 5 !h would have been close to meeting that standard, either. Sure there is a significant possibility that it would exchange a plus for a minus, but that's just a matter of judgement, rather than a serious, let alone an extremely serious error, or a gambling action.
As a club TD, usually playing myself, I rarely make a judgment ruling on the night. I try to gather the facts, but invite both sides to email me their arguments and then I make a ruling, after consultation wherever possible, some time the following day. In many clubs, where it is an extremely painful exercise to convene an appeal, it seems worth an experienced director trying to get the ruling right and save an appeal. In other contexts, I agree that it is OK for the TD to make what he thinks is a reasonable ruling of first instance and let an appeals committee sort it out if necessary.
It is also a good idea to ask the South player: "Why did you bid 4S?". If I were bidding 4D over 4C, it would be because I had already planned to bid 4S over the inevitable subsequent 4H bid. If EW are playing a system whereby East opens 4C to show a 4H opener, we have this opportunity to get both our suits into the auction that we wouldn't have over a normal 4H opening. Would South have replied thus if we had asked?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I think NS could have made more of the forcing nature of the auction. Presumably (either by agreement or in practice) 4D will never be the final contract, so North can always afford to Pass 4D and see if anyone does anything over 4H.
It is relevant the North was thinking of bidding 5D and is likely to bid 5D over 4H even if South passes. It might be that there should be a weighted ruling.
I don't think EW have done anything underhand in passing out 5D and asking for a ruling: they drew attention to the hesitation, and called the director at appropriate times. If they had doubled 5D that might have been a gambling action, but that would not be relevant unless 5D had made.
Thanks all for your input. Just to clarify one or two points that have arisen in the replies:
By "senior" I meant in terms of MP ranking and local repute rather than age (not that the latter implies caution in my experience, I know a few nonagenarians who are extremely spritely bidders);
The TD was non-playing and did not give his ruling instantly (as it happened it was the last board of a round in a Swiss Pairs so there was a bit of a hiatus anyway), and yes he did explain to the guilty pair their right of appeal.
On reflection, and closer inspection of the West hand, I agree that she did nothing untoward. I do find it interesting, though, that more than one responder has confirmed the relevance of North's intent to bid 5D with or without the 4S bid. It seemed to me that if the final contract, or more precisely the final decision facing West, was likely to be the same anyway, common sense would dictate that this should have some bearing on the adjudication (rectification, not punishment, is the watchword, is it not?); the TD disagreed.
I'm finding increasingly intriguing implications in some of these replies.
As it happened, 4H just made was the standard contract across the room, to the extent that the corrected score earned EW just 20 MP out of 38 to NS's 18.
5D-1 would have netted NS 33/38, but the solution suggested by one correspondent of an adjustment to 80% 4H to 20% 5D-1 gives an average of 480.6 which, given the proliferation of 620s, would still result in 30/38 to EW.
This would have meant a difference of two VPs (possibly three) to the outcome of the match, which of course would have altered the subsequent course of the event as the pairings in later rounds would have been totally different, but even if simply applied to the finishing position would have lifted NS by three places.
Intriguing.
The weighted score isn't computed as you suggest. NS would get 80% of 18MP for 4H= plus 20% of 33MP for 5D-1 which comes to 21MP. EBU Score does all the math for you; just enter the weightings in the appropriate box on the Enter Scores page. White Book has all the details.
Peter
As a TD, I do find it hard to remember that the fact that a call is withdrawn does NOT mean that the auction is forced to finish (although in many cases this is true). Maybe the TD (at additional time of course) should have polled the North hand and found out how often they would bid 5 !d (without knowing of South's spades of course).
Thanks Peter for the explanation, pardon my ignorance (and poor maths, 480.6 should be 506 even if it were worked out that way)
@Seniorkibitzer I'm not sure whether anyone asked South directly for her reasons for bidding as she did, but we have since discussed the hand and her explanation was almost identical to your hypothetical one. At the time she didn't explain it anything like as clearly, probably a bit flustered.