What to do when you've already produced UI?
Suppose you've been thinking a while about a bid, and realise you've broken tempo as a result. (Let's further assume that there are no misinformation issues involved; this is purely about the fact that you've given unauthorised information.)
What are the ethical restrictions that exist on your own actions right now? In general we rule "you don't have UI, only your partner has UI", but it strikes me that there are situations where the action you take after your own hestitation seems to have issues.
In particular, sometimes you're hesitating for a reason that's the opposite of what players would typically assume. For example, suppose the opponents opened a weak 1NT vulnerable after partner passed as dealer, and X is defined as penalty; you're in direct seat (thus will be on lead) and have a long suit that's pretty likely to run, but a not huge number of points (e.g. an 8-card suit headed with the AKJ and junk otherwise; the 1NT opener probably has two cards in the suit, meaning that you probably have a favourable break in it, and even if they have three they probably have the Queen, and your partner may well have a entry to take the finesse). You know the contract is going down if 1NT gets passed out, and it's probable that LHO has a reasonable number of points; as such, 1NT will probably get pulled to a suit if you pass, but might well be passed or even redoubled to play if you make your penalty double. As such, a penalty double seems like it might be the best idea, but if you do, partner is, unfortunately, highly likely to pull it (unless the missing points are fairly evenly split between LHO and partner). So perhaps it's better to pass and hope that the opponents end up in notrumps (you'd be happy with any of 1NT, 2NT, or 3NT, you can defeat all of them). (Wow, that's a lot of considerations to think about; have you broken tempo yet? I've spent several minutes thinking about the situation just writing this post.)
Suppose, after thinking your possibilities over, you decide to double. From partner's point of view, they see a slow penalty double, and think "my partner must have had an alternative to the double, thus leaving it in is counter-suggested, and if it's a logical alternative to do so, I'd better leave it in!". So as far as I can tell, no rules have been broken (you didn't huddle with the intent to communicate to your partner, and your huddle demonstrably suggests you're worried about the double being left in even though that isn't the actual reason for it, so your partner is doing the right think by leaving it in). And yet, your side is gaining an advantage from the break in tempo! Something seems wrong with either the Laws here, or my understanding of them.
Of course, because your actual hand is so unusual, after thinking for a while any of your actions will end up benefiting you. If you pass after the huddle, your partner will think you had enough values to consider acting and that this would demonstrably suggest keeping the auction alive and/or intervening, making your partner more likely to pass out a notrump contract in an attempt to be ethical. If you bid your suit after the huddle, I'd expect raising the suit to be counter-suggested by the huddle (when in fact, raises of your suit are safer than normal due to its extreme length). So is it possible to make any bid in this situation without causing some sort of ethical problem?
This is something of an extreme example, but smaller examples seem to come up all the time; any time you've already been thinking for a while, you'll be aware that you've given UI, and aware of what that UI is likely to suggest (because you can normally determine that entirely from the bidding, without looking at the hands). A more common example than the AKJxxxxx above: suppose your opponents have just overcalled your partner's bid of 4 of a major when both sides have a known fit, so you're considering whether to double them, bid on to the 5 level, or pass (let's assume that this isn't a forcing pass situation in the system you're playing). Normally, a long hesitation followed by a pass suggests that you were considering a stronger action but weren't sure about it (and thus the counter-suggested action, which partner has to take if a logical alternative, is to pass). However, suppose you're in this situation when you've been overbidding your hand or distribution a bit, or duplication with partner's hand has come to light, and suspect that even 4 of a major was rather too high, but aren't certain that the opponent's bid makes (although it's better than 50:50). You may well spend a while trying to decide between pass and double; in this case, the double would be to warn your partner not to attempt a sacrifice that you suspect is disastrous, at the cost of giving the opponents some extra points for making. Of course, once you've been thinking about it for a while, the huddle sends the opposite message ("please pull this"), thus UI-constraining your partner to do exactly what you want, i.e. passing! And that's the case whether you end up deciding on the pass or the double.
Are there any guidelines for what to do when you realise you've already transmitted UI to your partner? In particular, are there any constraints on your own actions, either a) to avoid making a choice that only becomes good due to knowing your partner's actions are UI-constrained, thus protecting you from unwanted actions by your partner, or b) to avoid making a choice for which you know the action countersuggested by the UI will be the correct one, even if that choice would be a normal choice in that situation? In each case, assume that the original UI wasn't intentional (intentionally producing misleading UI would clearly be cheating, even if your partner wasn't aware you were doing it), but it's now too late – you've already produced it.
(On a side note: some players are good at bidding in tempo in close situations, but not at bidding in tempo in weird situations. For such players, a break in tempo is likely to have a cause opposite to the likely causes of breaks in tempo for the same situation for the average player. Should directors take this sort of tendency into account in performing UI adjustments? Should their partner take this sort of tendency into account when working out what the ethical constraints on their actions are?)
Comments
No
On the side note - doesn't this come under the definition of "demonstrably suggested". You find out what partner's pause demonstrably suggests - and this may vary between players. In fact it usually does! When you poll players you ask them 'what does partner's pause suggest" - and no doubt you get different answers. Players are answering "What would my partner's pause suggest had he held the hand".
To give an (agist) example. Suppose your partner is a hyperagressive student, thinks and then passes. He is obviously VERY weak - and sacrificing may go for more than game. That suggests that you should sacrifice. If your partner is very conservative then you know that he still has some significant resources in his hand and that sacrificing is likley to cost less than the game. That suggests you should pass.
Do we have a general - but rather crude - principle that with anything "slow" partner would prefer it not to be the final contract?
Peter
We do have a general principle of "If it hesitates, shoot it", which is occasionally prevalent. We must never forget that sometimes a hand genuinely has something to think about and that Bridge is a thinking game. Sometimes, it takes time to work a problem out before taking an action. Sadly, this pause creates UI.
I've always found something a little perverse in spending extra time worrying about what partner is likely to make of my hesitation and I try not to concern myself with what partner's problems were that he had to break tempo to decide on an action. I guess we all do this but sometimes we fail to ignore the UI. Should we create more UI by spending time trying to decipher partner's pause? Generally, I try to make my bid and it'll be the director's problem to make it good.
As a director, ruling on hesitations is maybe the most onerous of duties. One player says that he needed to think. His partner insists that he took no advantage of UI. The opponents want an adjustment and all I can say is that I'll look at it later. I had one recently where I further had to decide whether subsequent action by the opponents was a gambling action.
As a player, I will sometimes say, "I acknowledge my partner's hesitation", just to head off any acrimony from the opponents.
I think that's the most frequent situation, that a slow call suggests willingness to consider other final contracts. Occasionally it means that the player considered passing but decided to over-bid, but I think that's much rarer.
I was a visitor to another club the other night where I went with my partner to get some practice for a weekend event. It's a friendly club with the standard being average. You don't hear the director being called out that much. The bidding had gone
1S 2D 2S 3H
Pause then P P 3S P
4S End
As the 2D bidder I said I would like to reserve my rights because of the pause before the pass on my right. The immediate response from my LHO was that he'd not noticed a pause and was just bidding his hand. They went one off which gave us 77% on the board so I pursued it no further. However, I feel I was a bit remiss in mentioning the pause. I was a guest at their club and I didn't know their standard and I just feel it was wrong of me to imply that they might have taken advantage of a hesitation. Hesitations are difficult things to deal with when directing. You want people to enjoy their Bridge and questioning them over something they don't believe happened can spoil someone's evening. When I play at that club again or at a new club I think I'll bite my tongue. Of course, tournaments are different.
See White Book 8.16.2:
"The L&EC considers that:
(a) A hesitation followed by a pass would normally be willing to hear partner bid on
(b) A hesitation followed by a minimum bid after RHO’s pass would normally have
something in hand
(c) A hesitation followed by a penalty double is normally willing to see it removed
However, in cases such as
Example
W: 1 !s
N: Pass
E: 3 !s (slow)
East might be considering a number of actions, i.e. the pause could have suggested
either a 2½ !s or a 3½ !s bid."
I think it is OK to allow your action to be influenced by the fact that you know that you have given UI to partner which may constrain his actions, but to a limited extent. In the pass/double/bid on scenario (with pass known not to be forcing), then it is OK to eliminate pass from your options because you judge that is likely to give partner the worst UI problem. What you should then do is make your best choice between doubling and bidding on in the knowledge that the UI makes it more likely than without any UI that your partner will have to respect your decision.
What I don't think you should do is to indulge in any manipulation of the situation by working out what is suggested and then making a call which will make partner do the right thing for your side because it is counter-suggested by the UI. To be honest I'm not sure that it's really possible to do this, for two reasons. First, you've already tanked for a noticeable enough period to provide some UI to partner. If you can work out all the further repercussions at the table, your powers of analysis are probably better than mine, and you're in danger of extending your tank to unreasonable lengths. Second, given that ex hypothesi your tank wasn't intentional, the fact that you paused means that you genuinely didn't know which was the best call to make. In those circumstances I would be surprised if you could really work out what you wanted partner to do over the call that you eventually decide to make.
I would advise not worrying too much about UI inadvertently given to partner. Better, I think, to save your mental effort for doing your best to follow Law 73C when the boot is on the other foot.
I was chatting to a multiple world champion recently, and she said that she never fails to be amazed at the length of time some people take over close decisions. If it's close, it'll still be close after you've thought about it for five minutes. Better make your best guess reasonably quickly and move on, saving your mental energy for more productive things.
I don't think it's practicable for directors to take much account of players' proclivities of that sort. For a start it runs the risk of giving different rulings in essentially the same situation. For the TD it's not about what this player was (probably) thinking about - the "demonstrably suggested" test is more objective than that.
For a player trying to comply with Law 73C, however, it is quite correct to take account of what you know of partner's habits, whether it be something like "slow invites are stretched, because heavy invites just bid game" or "slow means that partner is likely to have been faced with an unusual decision, rather than merely a close one".