[Joe de Balliol]

Reluctantly, I'd rule that a club lead is an LA and a spade is suggested by the hesitation, so I'll go along with the director's ruling. But my heart says "sod the law - spade lead looks fine".

J

[jikl]

This sounds like a good system

You appeal, the opponents who want the appeal to fail give written evidence obviously favouring them. The only other person giving evidence is the director with whom you disagree... Hrm, I am surprised they didn't keep your money and take it to the bar on that system.

Sean

[helene_t]

Vilgan, on Mar 23 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

1) if the pause suggests any suit, its a heart. If the person who hesitated had a good spade suit they could have doubled

If this was your reasoning, I can understand that you're frustrated by the ruling. But the AC appearantly thought (and I would agree) that the hesitation suggests a spade lead, because partner might have been considering a double.

[mink]

I doubt that anybody can think about a bridge decision and measure 10 seconds simultaneously. This is why the stop card should lie there for 10 seconds, and the skip bidder takes care that is remains there for this period of time. Opp is alerted that the 10 seconds are over when the stop card is removed.

But if the 3nt bidder choses not to use the stop card, he fails to protect his rights, and I would allow opp to pause for anything between 3 and 20 seconds. The argument is, if he really manages to wait for exactly 10 seconds, his partner has the UI that he had nothing to think about, because if he was thinking he would not have been able to measure the time.

If really, like Justin suggests, the difference between 10 seconds and 12-14 seconds already creates an UI, then not using the stop card would be a smart way to prevent opps from finding the right lead: Just call the director later and state that time opp waited was too long or too short, depending on which other lead needs to be promoted to a LA. Nobody can prove you lied, because there was nobody present with a stop watch.

The way the committee handled the case sounds like they had learned their job with Kafka's tutorial "Der Prozeß".

The rest of my reasoning is hypothetical. Suppose there was really an UI, was it demonstrably suggesting the spade lead? If we assume that opps have at least 25 HCP, there are only 7 HCP left for partner (at most). It is hard to believe that with such a weak hand he could have possibly thought about a lead directing double, because even with AKT9876 in the suit that was agreed to be shown by the lead directing double it is far from clear that opps will be down if this suit is led. Having such a suit I rather would think about bidding it, but in this case it could be any suit, and therefore nothing is suggested.

Karl

[Sancho]

mink, on Mar 26 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

Having such a suit I rather would think about bidding it, but in this case it could be any suit, and therefore nothing is suggested.

This is not true.

Suppose you hold ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣KQJT. The opponents bid 1N-3N. Before you lead, partner shouts "Man, I have an AKQJT, so we'll beat this if you lead a ...", at which point he is friendly, but firmly silenced by the director.

Now you put your clubs face down on the table, draw one of the other cards randomly and lead it. Of course, the UI did not explicitly suggest leading that specific suit. But we must obviously adjust the score if you happen to hit partners suit.

The situation would be different if the hand in question was ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣5432 because now the UI does not really suggest any suit over any other (I know that technically it still does because partner is still slightly less likely to hold ♣AKQJT, but I can't come up with a better example). But the original case we are discussing is much closer to my first example because even if you argue that partner won't have thought about a lead-directing double (which I do not agree with either btw), it is highly unlikely that (one of) his suit(s) is clubs. Thus, everything else is suggested, and if the player hits a succesful non-♣ lead, we must adjust although he still had guesswork to do.

(Of course, we adjust only if a relevant BIT has occured. As I do not really understand the ACBL regulations on the use and non-use of the stop card, I can't comment on that. My point is solely about what is demonstrably suggested.)

This post has been edited by Sancho: 2007-March-27, 05:54

[mycroft]

I know ~10 seconds is not a BIT. I know the regulations. But you'd better be consistent, all the time, especially in the ACBL.

Almost nobody is - especially in auctions like 1NT-3NT and ...<jump>7NT. I have had director calls (and they at least considered them) where my argument was "Yes, she's entitled to 10 seconds after a skip bid, but this is the fourth skip bid I've thrown at her this match, and the other three were passed in a second. *For her*, this is a BIT."

Michael.

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Mar 27 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

This is by far the correct interpretation in my opinion. What constitutes a BIT is almost definitely personal (normal tempo of the person for the auction must define what a break is), and also if someone is obviously thinking that can be taken into account. The fact that people don't take 10 seconds in this auction and that the person took MORE than 10 seconds must be relevant here.

IF the person said "i always take 10 seconds after a skip, and I am a great actor and always look like I'm thinking, and I just miscounted to 10 by a few seconds" and no one could refute that I would look at their hand to see if they actually had a bidding problem. If they really had a bidding problem and the opps were saying there was a BIT I would believe them.

But herein is the problem. You (the 3NT bidder) is suppose to make a skip bid warning. This requires the next hand to pause for ~10 seconds, and while doing so, appear to be reflective. This is the 3NT bidder's requirement. 97 times out of 100 the next hand will not have a problem (or 87 or 99, who cares the actual number). IF they pass quickly or appear to be counting the second with no thought to bid, they have created a problem for themselves and you should be protected. So lets assume that in all 100 cases they pause about 10 seconds and appear to be carefully considering their actions. Both sides have done what they should do, and in the 1 to 13 cases where they have a real problem, they can "think" without giving their partners any UI due to a BIT.

Now lets turn the table. The 3NT bidder does not issue a skip bid alert. Now if the next hand does, as next hands tend to do (not knowing the rules) passes fairly quickly on hands with no need to think, then anytime they have a problem -- and surely sometimes they will -- they will have a BIT. It is true that their BIT is, in fact, caused by a combination of the 3NT bidders failure to issue a skip bid alert and their own tendency not to take the "required" pause even if there is no skip bid warning. This, Justin, the director and the appeals committee deem is enough to rule against the person having the problem (all justin seems to require is for the third hand to have a "problem hand".). The problem is, do we really know the fourth hands tendency to hestitate over such a jump? After all, in tournaments, how often have we seen this person face a 1NT-p-3NT-? acution? IS there a risk for the 3NT bidder in not issuing a skip bid alert? Of course, the ACBL view on this is very clear as I quoted earlier....

Quote

Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making an opening bid on the two level or higher, or prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding

What does this mean "protect their rights" by issuing their skip bid warning? It means just this... if you don't issue the skip bid warning, you are at least partially responsible for the appartent BIT when one occurs, and failure to do isssue the warning puts you "rights" at risk. I certainly would NEVER have ruled against a spade lead on the given explaination as that overly rewards the partnership that added to the problem by their failure to announce a skip bid warning. OF course, if it is know the 4th hands passes in a second on almost all hands on this auction, then the problem reverts back to his failure to pause on other hands and then I would rule UI and require a club lead and use this case as showing them why they should pause even without a skip bid warning...but such evidence was not given in the case.

[jdonn]

You are NOT responsible for your opponents' breaks in tempo if you do not use the stop card. Show me the part in the rules where is says "if the opponents don't use their stop card you get free hesitations for partner to take advantage of at half the penalty." The reason the rules say the card should be used is as a reminder, since many players will simply forget to pause if not reminded. The quote you keep repeating is not nearly as clear as you seem to believe, "should" and "rights" could be interpreted several ways. As far as I'm concerned there can be no penalty for something that is clearly not required (or they would say "must" instead of "should".)

"Since everyone is suppose to take 10 seconds (more or less) with or without the warning, there is no need to protect yourself or your opponents from their MANDATORY hesitation."

- Inquiry (caps yours, not mine)

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2007, 12:49 AM, said:

You are NOT responsible for your opponents' breaks in tempo if you do not use the stop card. Show me the part in the rules where is says "if the opponents don't use their stop card you get free hesitations for partner to take advantage of at half the penalty." The reason the rules say the card should be used is as a reminder, since many players will simply forget to pause if not reminded. The quote you keep repeating is not nearly as clear as you seem to believe, "should" and "rights" could be interpreted several ways. As far as I'm concerned there can be no penalty for something that is clearly not required (or they would say "must" instead of "should".)

"Since everyone is suppose to take 10 seconds (more or less) with or without the warning, there is no need to protect yourself or your opponents from their MANDATORY hesitation."

- Inquiry (caps yours, not mine)

How do you interpret the part about "protect their rights" other than suggest that in some cases a ruling might go against them due to their failure to issue the skip bid warning?

But on another issue, if I am correct (and we know that I am) that even without a skip bid warning the next hand is suppose to pause and at least appear to be considering his bid for approxiametly 10 seconds, how can one rule that a 12 second appearance to be considering a bid be a BIT? (the stated range was 12 to 14 seconds). I mean, according to the ACBL's codification that is exactly what the next hand is suppose to do with all hands.

Here is a link to the ACBL Codification (section 12) that discusses this issue. I wasn't at the table, I don't know the players or their habits involved, but if this ruling had gone against me I would have been highly irate because in tournament play I pause over all skip bids if the skip bid warning was used or not. I am sure most players here do the same thing. Imagine your feelings if followng the rules result in such a ruling againt you.

[tbr]

Isn't the rule either always or never? In the last 2 years I am using never on the skip bid card. Thanks

[barmar]

tbr, on Mar 28 2007, 08:05 AM, said:

Isn't the rule either always or never? In the last 2 years I am using never on the skip bid card. Thanks

The purpose of that rule is to avoid the appearance of UI based on whether you use the STOP card. E.g. if it appeared that you always used the STOP card with preemptive jumps, but never used it with strong jumps, that would be a problem.

It's unrelated to the recommendation to use the STOP card to protect your rights if LHO fails to pause.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Mar 28 2007, 06:39 AM, said:

How do you interpret the part about "protect their rights" other than suggest that in some cases a ruling might go against them due to their failure to issue the skip bid warning?

It is just my personal interpretation, but to me it means this could be used as a factor to help determine if there was a hesitation at all in cases of disagreement about the facts.

Another possibility is the powers that be wanted to leave the door slightly ajar to punish people they "know" deserve it but who have managed to skirt around the rules.

In any case, it certainly is unclear what that means.

Quote

But on another issue, if I am correct (and we know that I am) that even without a skip bid warning the next hand is suppose to pause and at least appear to be considering his bid for approxiametly 10 seconds, how can one rule that a 12 second appearance to be considering a bid be a BIT? (the stated range was 12 to 14 seconds). I mean, according to the ACBL's codification that is exactly what the next hand is suppose to do with all hands.

Here is a link to the ACBL Codification (section 12) that discusses this issue. I wasn't at the table, I don't know the players or their habits involved, but if this ruling had gone against me I would have been highly irate because in tournament play I pause over all skip bids if the skip bid warning was used or not. I am sure most players here do the same thing. Imagine your feelings if followng the rules result in such a ruling againt you.

Firstly, you shouldn't call it a 12 second hesitation, you should call it a 12-14 second hesitation. That is actually a pretty substantial difference since it seems to me 12 seconds is right on the cusp of where it may start being too long in many cases.

Appeals committees (at least in the U.S.) have long and consistently considered hesitations in the context of the auction. One example is that players are generally given more time in complicated slam auctions, and rulings have followed this trend for at least the last 10 years (the time during which I have been reading casebooks.) This is an example in the other direction. In practice, most players pass instantly after 1NT p 3NT, and even vigilant ones tend to pass in 5-6 seconds. Does it sound unfair to players who absolutely wait 10 seconds every time on every auction? In a sense it is, but it's the approach most likely to discover when there truly was UI in most cases. 12-14 seconds on this auction is more telling than on most. On its own, the claim would probably not be enough if the other side denied it, but look at all the evidence together.

- One side called the director and claims a 12-14 second hesitation (as far as I know, it was not denied in this case).
- The auction is one on which most players would pass quickly.
- Looking at east's hand, it's clearly a hand that would pose a difficult problem for many players on this auction.

Looking in conjunction at those 2 points (the third one seems to be getting largely ignorred but is completely appropriate for a committee to consider) it seems extremely likely that there was a break in tempo. Just for this one moment forget the rules and look at those 3 points. Regardless of what any law says, don't you agree that there was a break in tempo?

If E/W want someone to blame, they should look squarely at west. Even if he is not sure there was a break in tempo, he must have known that there MIGHT have been one. So he should make the lead least suggested if it is reasonable, which a club certainly is. This is not just talk committees use to make rulings, it is what people are supposed to practice at the table. But sadly, so few do.

Some people just say they are going to do whatever they would have done and so be it, but this is completely the wrong thing to do for at least two reasons. One is that the opponents are not in a position to know what you would have done. The other (something Michael Rosenberg has talked about) is that YOU are not in a position to know what you would have done! You may be certain you know, but the hesitation puts you in a different frame of mind whether you realize it or not. It is a subconcious and intuitive reaction to begin justifying to yourself that the suggested alternative is what you would always do at the very first sign of a tempo break.

People would sleep so much better at night if they would make a habit of going above and beyond the call of fair play, even at the possible expense of their results. Imagine how great it would feel as west to lead a club because partner hesitated, have it not work, then go on to win anyway. A lot better than it would feel to lead a spade and go on to win, having to wonder why you really won...

At least for me that is true.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I doubt that anybody can think about a bridge decision and measure 10 seconds simultaneously. This is why the stop card should lie there for 10 seconds, and the skip bidder takes care that is remains there for this period of time. Opp is alerted that the 10 seconds are over when the stop card is removed.

But if the 3nt bidder choses not to use the stop card, he fails to protect his rights

This may be true in some jurisdictions, but definitely not in the ACBL. The ACBL bid box procedure clearly states that the skip bidder does *not* control the tempo of the next bidder; he is supposed to display the stop warning, make the bid, then put it back in the box. Opp must wait 10 seconds whether or not the skip bid was used.

I also don't think that 12-14 sec should be considered BIT if it can be established that someone consistently waits 10 seconds; after all most are not sitting there with stopwatches at the table, and certainly none that have them are breaking them out and using them. Often opponent can claim 12-14 sec when it was really 10 sec; 10 sec is a longer time than most people perceive, and directors should know this. I'd want it to be BIT only if person was one of the vast majority who tend to insta-pass over 3nt, or the ones who try to do the right thing but do it too quickly, the 5-6 sec people jdonn mentions. For someone who consistently take the full 10, I think it should be at least ~16 sec or so before a BIT is established.

As for the original case, I think the only defense is if partner consistently hesistates for 10 secs, then argue there is no BIT. If he is not in this habit, the ruling is clearcut.

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

In a sense it is, but it's the approach most likely to discover when there truly was UI in most cases. 12-14 seconds on this auction is more telling than on most. On its own, the claim would probably not be enough if the other side denied it, but look at all the evidence together.

- One side called the director and claims a 12-14 second hesitation (as far as I know, it was not denied in this case).
- The auction is one on which most players would pass quickly.
- Looking at east's hand, it's clearly a hand that would pose a difficult problem for many players on this auction.

Looking in conjunction at those 2 points (the third one seems to be getting largely ignorred but is completely appropriate for a committee to consider) it seems extremely likely that there was a break in tempo. Just for this one moment forget the rules and look at those 3 points. Regardless of what any law says, don't you agree that there was a break in tempo?

If E/W want someone to blame, they should look squarely at west. Even if he is not sure there was a break in tempo, he must have known that there MIGHT have been one. So he should make the lead least suggested if it is reasonable, which a club certainly is. This is not just talk committees use to make rulings, it is what people are supposed to practice at the table. But sadly, so few do.

Some people just say they are going to do whatever they would have done and so be it, but this is completely the wrong thing to do for at least two reasons. One is that the opponents are not in a position to know what you would have done. The other (something Michael Rosenberg has talked about) is that YOU are not in a position to know what you would have done! You may be certain you know, but the hesitation puts you in a different frame of mind whether you realize it or not. It is a subconcious and intuitive reaction to begin justifying to yourself that the suggested alternative is what you would always do at the very first sign of a tempo break.

People would sleep so much better at night if they would make a habit of going above and beyond the call of fair play, even at the possible expense of their results. Imagine how great it would feel as west to lead a club because partner hesitated, have it not work, then go on to win anyway. A lot better than it would feel to lead a spade and go on to win, having to wonder why you really won...

At least for me that is true.

Ok.. so lets look at this in your context. Most people would "pass quickly" on 1NT-3NT.. look at EAST hand and he had a problem hand. And east took 12 seconds (lets just call it TEN to remove the extra time from the issue. Lets say the guy took 10 second, studied his hand and passed for this arguement).

Now at table one. There was a skip bid warning. And the case is as above. At table 2 there was no skip bid warning. At both tables, the 4th hand had a problem, and it took preceisly 10 seconds to choose an action.

At table one, thanks to the skip bid warning. The auction ends, and the defender leads a spade, the contract goest down two. At table two, the auction ends the defenser leads a spade, and the director is called.

What is the difference? At table one, the 3NT bidder did what he was suppose to do, the defense found the "right lead" the contract went down. No director call. At table two, the 3NT bidder did not remind the defenders to follow the rules, the defender took his 10 seconds as "required" and found the lead. Now we call the director, we say "well, geez, look at his hand, it is one with a problem, so clearly he had a problem". You must rule BIT and UI and LA and give us the benefit. Or conversly, poor opening leader has to say to himself, I don't want to lead a club on this auction, but if a spade is right I am maybe screwed because my partner took the required pause over the 3NT jump. I would normally lead a spade if given this auction on a piece of paper with no info about tempo and with this holding but here I can not or risk getting screwed. And why? Because my LHO didn't issue a skip bid warning.

Now, I don't know about you, but in this case, the problem is not that there was a hesitation, but that there is an expectation that when he paused WITH A PROBLEM hand it provided BIT. And why you might ask? Because of the lack of the skip bid warning. Pause 4/5 second normally, 14 seconds now, not too fuzzy, but we havne no infro on what this pair does normally over 1N-3N. What we do know is that they would be required and reminded to pause about 10 seconds if the skip bid had been warned. The fact that without that with or without that warning is the next hand gets time to make a considered decision without being judged a BIT (within reason). This is why the ACBL codification warns people to "protect their rights" by using the skip bid warning.

In the example above, the pair that played "ethically" (or at least by the rules by using the skip bid warning) is "punished" because a "lucky spade" lead defeates them. While the pair that ignores convention DESPITE a clear warning of the risk of loss of protection to their rights are richely rewarded. This is not fair nor consistent with the idea of bridge as a fair game.

If you want to argue that the pause was 14 second or longer and that was too long, fine. I wasn't there (I suspect only one of us on this forum was). But the fact remain that you are ALLOWED to pause. LEts make it PRECISELY 10 seconds and see how we would rule. Would you still rule BIT? Would you still rule spade lead not a LA?

Your third point is ENTIRELY beside the issue. Sure on this hand the third hand had a problem... problems crop up on auction that are suddenly at the three level before you get a chance to bid. This is WHY the skip bid warning (and stop card) were added to the game. Your self-styled solution (people pass quickly, and look he had a problem hand so you got to rule against him even though there was no skip bidding warining) punishes the player for having to think at a point where he is legal allowed and in fact REQUIRED to at least appear to do so. That, imho, is very wrong and unfair approach.

We have all seen this type of auction and we all hate to hear this auction

Pass - (1H) -pass - 2NT--STOP--- wait 10 seconds) - p - (4C STOP wait 10 seconds) pass - (5D STOP wait 10 second) - Pass - (6H STOP wait 10 seconds) pass

Here we wre told to stop four times and if we never had any intention of bidding we just wasted 40 seconds. But we might want to double the 4C or 5D or maybe even 6H. The fact that we paused on each of them does not, however convey info about our hands. Imagine if after 5D we stop to ponder what a double of an exclusion 5D (if that is waht it was) would mean. We are entitiled to think this out without it being a BIT, but if there was no STOP card?

I find the use of the lack of following convention (use of the skip bid warning) and then whinning about the opponent taking time to consider their bid poor sportsmanship that could have been avoided with the use of the card. If the stop card had been used (or not) and the fellow took a ridiculously long time, ok, I would rule against him too. 10 seconds is not, 12 seconds is not, to me 14 seconds is probably not. 20 second or more, now you have BIT. But to say a person had a problem hand and took time to bid it and so must be ruled against, then no...

If the auction had been 2NT-Pass-3NT and the fellow took 10 to 14 seconds to bid, he could have the same kind of problem hand, but I would rule a BIT in that case. But the 2NT bidder should have given the skip bid warning and the 4th hand could have predicted a possible 3NT bid so he had plenty of time to decide what he would be bid in that case.

[Gerben42]

I rule against the opening leader. People who wait the full 10 seconds after 1N - 3N are quite rare if not extinct.

[inquiry]

Gerben42, on Mar 28 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

I rule against the opening leader. People who wait the full 10 seconds after 1N - 3N are quite rare if not extinct.

How do you resolve the two table case then with this hand...

Table one.. skip bid warning
Table two... no skip bid waring

both wait 10 seconds, both partners find the spade lead?

You "reward" table two by changing the lead and punish table one by letting the spade lead stand?

[awm]

It seems clear that the ruling should be the same regardless of whether the stop card was used.

Basically when there is a skip bid, your call should take between X and Y seconds, with anything less than X or more than Y considered to potentially give UI. Ben's argument is based on the assumption that X=10, and Y is something "a bit more than X" whereas I think the norm is more that Y=10, and that X is something "a bit less than Y."

[jdonn]

No no no, the side calling the director doesn't say "Look at east's hand, obviously he had a problem." They look at what they think is a hesitation, and at WEST's hand and say "East hesitated, and west may have taken advantage." Then the DIRECTOR (among other things) looks at East's hand and says "This was a difficult bid, the likelihood of a break in tempo is higher than it would otherwise have been."

I don't understand your hypothetical example. At each of those two tables, the opponent should call if they believe East conveyed UI, and not call if they believe he didn't. Whether they used the stop card or not should have no bearing on whether they call for the director.

The example auction you provide with 4 skip bids is different because it's so unusual. 1NT p 3NT is the most boring 10 second pause most people can have in their lives (they aren't even on lead), which is why most are a little lazier about their pause there.

Quote

I would normally lead a spade if given this auction on a piece of paper with no info about tempo and with this holding but here I can not or risk getting screwed. And why? Because my LHO didn't issue a skip bid warning.

There are two gigantic problems with him thinking this way. One is that, as I said, he has NO IDEA what he would have led if his partner had passed quickly, even if he is sure he knows. "Bridge, Zia, and Me" by Rosenberg discusses this concept in much more detail, but simply trust me that it is true. The other is the last sentence. The problem (problem being West feels confined in his options) was not caused by lack of a skip bid warning, it is caused by a hesitation.

To be fair, I don't want to avoid your difficult question.

Quote

If you want to argue that the pause was 14 second or longer and that was too long, fine. I wasn't there (I suspect only one of us on this forum was). But the fact remain that you are ALLOWED to pause. LEts make it PRECISELY 10 seconds and see how we would rule. Would you still rule BIT? Would you still rule spade lead not a LA?

Well I never said at all a spade is not a LA, I said that a club is one and that anything but a club was suggested. But to answer your question, I consider it a difficult ruling that might even have to be decided differently for different people with different (known) habits. But ultimately I would think the right ruling is no BIT, knowing that this creates a somewhat unfair situation for NS (since UI may still have been conveyed) but it is hard to convince oneself to strictly break the letter of the law. I feel a LOT more sympathy for NS in that situation than for EW in this one.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Mar 28 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

It seems clear that the ruling should be the same regardless of whether the stop card was used.

Basically when there is a skip bid, your call should take between X and Y seconds, with anything less than X or more than Y considered to potentially give UI. Ben's argument is based on the assumption that X=10, and Y is something "a bit more than X" whereas I think the norm is more that Y=10, and that X is something "a bit less than Y."

Couple quick comments here:

1. I agree with Adam's main point. Any system that produces different rulings depending on whether or not the stop card was used seems very flawed. I also concur with a couple earlier posters who noted their belief that the North American regulations require consistency in the use of the stop card. One should either use it all the time or never use it at all. I don't recall many pairs in the Boston area use of the Stop Card.

2. One issue that really complicates this entire discussion is determining what constitutes normal tempo in the auction and what can (realistically) be construed as a break in tempo. Here's one odd little hypothetical. Lets assume that every wants to be a good law abiding citizen and wait for 10 seconds following the auction 1N - (P) - 3N. However, no one is perfect and most people don't have a good internal clock. Even if every person out there people was trying to do the "right thing", I'd still expect that you have a vaguely bell shaped curve with its mean being ~10 seconds. I have no idea how often players naturally produce a 12 second pause while "trying" for a 10 second pauase.

Long term, this might be one of those cases where the online game has a significant advantage over the face to face version. In theory, the BBO server could time stamp each bid and each play of the cards as they occured. Over time, one could build up a data base of time stamps associated with different auctions. Once you had a suitable large sample of 1N - 3N auctions, you might be able to determine boundary conditions that define an unduely "fast" or "slow" bid for a given auction. In theory, given enough time you could even determine what constituted a unusually long "tank" for Barnet Shenkin or P.O. Sunderlin.

If/when the Bermuda Bowl ever takes place using an electronic playing environment it might actually be worthwhile implementing something like this.