Hesitation disputed

writerman

The thing I find most difficult as director is when a claim of hesitation is disputed by the alleged offender or their partner. The advice I have been given on directors courses are;

a) ask the alleged offender what they were thinking about. The problem with that is that a savvy player who has heard this advice may just say they weren't thinking about anything.

b) if there's a claim of hesitation then there probably was hesitation. That would allow an unscrupulous player to claim hesitation whenever they thought it would be to their advantage.

I had one at the club last week where partner of the alleged offender said "oh, my partner always takes her time over bidding".

Does anyone have any additional techniques for determining whether a claim of hesitation is justified?

Senior_Kibitzer

White Book 8.16.7 gives some advice. Judging from a players hand whether he may have had something to think about is a last resort, and also check whether the previous call was a jump bid requiring a Stop.

I disagree with asking an alleged offender what they were thinking about. It's a trick question in the genre of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

What I would recommend is to ask each player in turn their own perception of how long the alleged offender took to call, and how much they were taking notice (ie how sure they are). And don't let them be interrupted by each other!

There is some bias towards disputed hesitations actually being hesitations. The passage of time is less noticeable when you are thinking and more noticeable when you are waiting for someone else to call.

As for "My partner always takes her time over bidding", yes, there is the matter of a player's personal tempo, but that's difficult for a TD to assess if not knowing the player. There was an occasion I was partnering a friend who hadn't played for many years and I was asked to agree if he had hesitated, and I said it was the fastest call he had made all evening!

Senior_Kibitzer

I have now found the source of "ask the alleged offender what they were thinking about". It is in a 2016 edition of the booklet for those taking the Club TD Training course on Judgement Rulings. The courses got revamped after the new Laws in 2017 and the following advice no longer appears in the booklets.

"a) Ask each player in turn how long the offender took to make his call. Expect exaggeration from one side and understatement from the other. Avoid using the word "hesitation" - players are often prepared to own up to considering their course of action, but deny this constitutes hesitation.

b) Give the players time to express themselves. Often they will say something that enables you to conclude that there was a break in tempo, eg, "I had a difficult hand", "I didn't take 30 seconds, ten at the most", "I had to work out .... ", etc. Don't stop them immediately you hear the revealing words or indicate what it was that determined your finding of fact, but remember carefully the exact words in case there is an appeal.

c) If the offender does not make it clear, ask him some questions. Ask what alternatives he had. Was it a close decision?

d) If you are still not able to rule on a finding of fact, tell the players that you will have to look at the hand afterwards in order to reach a decision. Invite them to add anything to what they have already told you which may help you to reach the correct decision.

e) Looking at the hand to determine whether there was a hesitation is a last resort. Did the offender think he had a choice to make? Would you expect someone in that position to have to think, or is his bid completely obvious? You may need to know rather more about their system to answer this."

I would add that it makes a difference whether you are at the table in the middle of the play of the board or at the end of play of the board. If you are called during or at the end of the auction, you don't want to provoke a player into giving information to the other players that will affect the rest of the play of the board. However, you will at least want to establish whether the "hesitation" is agreed or disputed, and if disputed, you can probe more if called back at the end of the play of the board.