Hesitation
I'd welcome views on how to handle this situation:
North East South West
Bid Pass Bid Pass
Pass Bid
North then calls director saying that West hesitated. Opponents deny this although, looking at West's hand, it does look as though West had something to think about. No-one had previously suggested that there had been a hesitation.
I'm concerned that North's director call opens up opportunities for gaming or even gives UI to their partner - specifically because the call is from North before South has bid.
How should I deal with this? Is there advice I could give to players to avoid this happening in the future?
Comments
Firstly, you should not take West's hand into account when determining if there was a hesitation (it's generally better not to look at the hands at all unless you have to).
Secondly there either was or wasn't a hesitation, and in the absence of agreement between players it is up to the director to decide based on the balance of probabilities.
In these cases I usually ask the accused hesitator to re-enact what they did. The opposition will probably disagree, so I ask them to show me what they thought it looked like. The truth is usually somewhere in between.
I might ask the accused player to come away from the table and tell me what they were thinking about - that often helps.
In terms of advice to the players, tell them to agree a hesitation at the time and call the director immediately if there is no agreement.
Finally, be wary of a player saying they didn't notice their partner hesitate - I often find this means they did!
Either way, North’s call for the TD may well be legitimate, and is effectively reserving his rights. The TD is likely to try and establish if there was a hesitation and unlikely to look at any of the hands at this stage.
Bidding and Play should continue; calling the TD at the end of play if N/S feel damaged by the final result.
The act of calling the TD is extremely unlikely to give UI in a case like this, and I wouldn't be concerned if agreement hasn't been sought before I arrive. I think that "action re-plays" are more useful in Law 45C2 and similar situations (eg whether a card by declarer is deemed to have been played).
In an alleged hesitation situation, I prefer to ask each player in turn for their perception of any delays. Then it is time to tell the players to complete play of the board and to call us back if anyone then unhappy.
As Jeremy suggests, there should near enough never be cause to look at anyone's cards before the end of play of a board
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Surely you still need to rule there and then on whether there was a hesitation or not - if nothing else so so that (alleged) hesitator's partner can known whether there has been Ui and hence law 16B1a applies.
No. It's common to decide later, especially in events where video can give you the information. Often the need to decide goes away.
You have VAR? Wow!
Does this mean agreeing immediately after the hesitation or after their partner decides to bid? I don't "enquire" about a hesitation unless their partner bids - I thought this was the done (and courteous) thing.
I will always ask the opposition to acknowledge a hesitation if I think there is a (significant) one. Amongst other things it is both fresher in the memory and being dealt with at a less emotionally charged point in time (compared to after their partner has bid).
Agreed you don't benefit from "partner doesn't bid so no issue", but I think the upside is worth it.
Consider a situation where there is a hesitation and partner doesn't bid, but later makes a sacrifice /double... who can remember the precise situation several auction rounds later?
I'm not aware of any etiquette about it - anyone else?