[hirowla]

Hi,

Given this seems to be an area of some controversy in rulings, I'd like suggestions on how I should approach rulings regarding break in tempo. In particular, the things that need to be considered and what to do once I have that information. Please keep in mind the following information:

• This is in a club game, so we're not playing for high stakes.
  
• I am a new director and not exactly a veteran of bridge in general.
  
• When directing, I am usually a playing director. On this night, there were no other directors available (the other one was at the table!)
  
• My opponents are excellent veteran players, among the best at the club.

I'll illustrate this with an example, at which I was playing - which of course made it more challenging.

I was sitting West, with ♠ 10xxxx ♥ x ♦ - ♣ KJxxxxx. North opens the bidding at it goes:
(1♦) - P - (1♥) - P - (2♥) - P* - (P) - X - (P) - 2NT (asking for a minor) - (3♥) - 4♣ - (4♥) - P - P - P.
4♥ goes down 2 tricks, 5♣ makes.

The * bid is the issue at stake. The opposition at the end mentioned that my partner hesitated and hence ethically I should have passed 2♥. I didn't notice the hesitation, as my partner is quite methodical. If he paused, I didn't notice it and I generally try to pre-plan my bids to avoid situations like this. In our agreements, an auction like this (without his pause) means the basic requirements for me to bid are 13 cards and a heartbeat! So I had already predetermined if my opponent passed 2♥ I was always going to bid something.

So in essence given the above situation:

• What should happen if the hesitation is not agreed on? My partner didn't think he hesitated either.
  
• Was I right in saying when asked to decide that I'd look at the score later to see if anything unusual happened here and I would consider adjusting it if our result was unusual? (As an aside, they didn't pursue it because they got a good score).
  
• What things should I be trying to determine in order to decide whether the score needed to be corrected later?
  
• Given my partner and I had an agreement (non-written), is it proper for me to bid (as distinct from the suggestion I should have passed)? Is there no logical alternative given we do have an agreement on this, and hence bidding is "required"?
  
• Would bidding on to 4♥ with a hand passed in at 2♥ be considered reckless or irrational? I can accept the 3♥ bid as simply competing but the 4♥ bid seems to be having a bet both ways! But his bridge judgment is probably a lot more experienced than mine.
  
• Is there anything else to consider from this?

Any advice would be helpful. I'm mainly asking in order to learn, nothing more.

Thanks,

Ian

P.S For bonus points, you can tell me how to bid that hand. I'm still not sure what the right thing to do is!

[iviehoff]

When there is a disagreement over whether there actually was a break in tempo, this is difficult for the director. He just has to listen to the arguments and rule whether there was or wasn't on the balance of the evidence. Ideally the opposition should have attempted to reserve their rights closer to the time of the hesitation. If they attempt to reserve their rights, and you object, then you can have the director there to decide closer to the time of the incident, and without an potential adverse ruling hanging in the air to poison the argument. But they haven't automatically lost the argument because they didn't reserve their rights at the earliest opportunity, but it does make it harder for the balance of evidence to favour their assertion.

You should not look at the score for other players on the hand, that is irrelevant to whether there is a case here.

"I already worked out what I would do before the hesitation occurred" doesn't wash. Once you are in receipt of UI, you have certain duties under the laws, and so you have an obligation to evaluate what is legal at that point.

Assuming the BIT is ruled to have occured, the correct procedure here is to consult with knowledgeable players, and/or have a little poll, to help you decide whether pass is a logical alternative to protective action over 2H. The vulnerability probably matters. I'm expecting pass will turn out to be a LA. I would be sceptical of claims such as "we have an undocumented ageement to bid on 13 cards in this situation". So, if I rule there was a BIT, I'm probably adjusting the score to 2H=.

[mycroft]

iviehoff has it all right (pay attention especially to "once you have UI, you are under obligations, whether or not you'd already decided what to do"), and if you have an "odd" agreement, you should have it written somewhere. I do have the agreement that "we try very hard to not let them play 2 of a fit", and with 12 black cards, I'm not passing 2H out. Were I polled on this hand, that's what I'd say. Of course at my table it would continue x-p-3D-p-oh dear :-)

Of course, with a 1=4=4=4 4-count, I better think about it - and pass is certainly reasonable.

As the playing director, it is probably best to bend over backwards in rulings at your table. As you said, club game, small stakes (I hope that doesn't include actual money, the rubber bridge referee at a club should *almost never* be playing - and you've just seen why!), take your bad board and go.

One thing of note, however, is that commonly, one will poll players (who aren't there, maybe, or who have already played the hand) as to what they would do (without the hesitation of course). The laws define LA in terms of things your peers would think about and do, and actually asking them sometimes helps! And it is better to have evidence, if you *are* going to rule in your own favour, that "well, I asked X, and Y, and Z, and they all bid".

Please note that iviehoff's order is important:
- the hesitation was disputed, and that needs to be judged on by the TD based on questions, knowledge of the players, and potentially "are his peers going to have trouble with this hand" (lends credence to "there was a hesitation").
- if the TD rules that there likely was a hesitation, it is UI, and now we determine what the UI "demonstrably suggests", and check to see what alternatives there are to the action taken
- then which ones are "logical" by definition
- then whether there are less successful ones *that are not suggested by the UI*
- and then, if we find one, we assign an adjusted score based on Law 12.

[Vampyr]

 iviehoff, on 2011-March-02, 06:37, said:

Ideally the opposition should have attempted to reserve their rights closer to the time of the hesitation.

I dislike the term "reserve one's rights" because it doesn't actually indicate what should be done.

What should be done is that the players agree that there was a hesitation. If they don't agree, then the director is called to try to establish the facts. If they agree, the director does not need to be called until the end of the hand, if at all.

One surprisingly common phenomenon is that people don't actually know what the word "hesitation" actually means. Similarly "break in tempo". They will deny having hesitated or broken tempo, but they will agree that they had a decision to make and had to think about it.

[blackshoe]

I agree it would be better to see if the opponents concur that UI might have been conveyed (breaks in tempo aren't, btw, the only things that might convey UI), but that isn't what the law says.

Quote

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

In this case, though, I'd go ahead with Stefanie's recommended procedure — it can hardly cause any more problems than following the law literally would, and it will probably cause less.

Note that the law says "if you disagree, you call the TD". Yet what often happens at the table is that rather than just call the TD, folks want to argue. So even though they are supposed to call, if they would rather argue, I usually end up calling.

I think people instinctively want to deny having done something wrong, and "hesitation" or "break in tempo" sound like something wrong. So when you're asking (as TD anyway) you might want to ask if they had something they needed to think about, rather than whether they "hesitated".

It's also important that the TD allow the auction to proceed to a conclusion. Tell the players about not using UI, or making every effort to avoid taking advantage of UI, but don't tell them what they can or cannot bid, and don't even think of "rolling the auction back" or whatever. Let them get a table result, and if somebody thinks they could have got a better one absent the BIT, then consider adjusting the score.

[jh51]

Of course, what seems to have made this particular case tough, if I understood OP correctly, is that he was both the TD and a party to the ruling. Furthermore, the only other director present was one of the opponents.

[RMB1]

 hirowla, on 2011-March-01, 23:37, said:

Any advice would be helpful. I'm mainly asking in order to learn, nothing more.

There are two different answers: one for how a club TD should deal with this position when it occurs at another table; and another for how a playing TD should deal with this position when he is one of the players, and there is no one else available to give a ruling.

• What should happen if the hesitation is not agreed on? My partner didn't think he hesitated either.
  
  As a TD at any level you have to listen to both sides and decide. "I had to think" is a hesitation; "I didn't notice" does mean there was or wasn't.
  
  As a last resort, at the end of the session, you may look at alledged hesitators hand to see if it has a problem and at alledged hesitators bidding to see if it appears to have been as a result of hesitation.
  
  As a playing TD you just accept that your side hesitated.
  
  
• Was I right in saying when asked to decide that I'd look at the score later to see if anything unusual happened here and I would consider adjusting it if our result was unusual?
  
  As a club TD (whether it is at your table or not) do not try and decide on adjusting score until play is over and you can talk to the players again and to others. At the time you just need to agree the facts and form an opinion where the facts are disputed.
  
  
• What things should I be trying to determine in order to decide whether the score needed to be corrected later?
  
  Was there a hesitation?
  Are there logical alternatives to the action of hesitator's partner?
  Did the hesitation suggest the action taken over the alternatives?
  Were the opponents damaged?
  
  
• Given my partner and I had an agreement (non-written), is it proper for me to bid (as distinct from the suggestion I should have passed)? Is there no logical alternative given we do have an agreement on this, and hence bidding is "required"?
  
  As a club TD you will take any statements about such agreements with a degree of scepticism. In general, you will assume that a pairs un-writen agreements are the same as their peers (other players of the same standard at the club).
  
  As a TD playing at the table you should just assume that Pass is a logical alternative.
  
  
• Would bidding on to 4♥ with a hand passed in at 2♥ be considered reckless or irrational?
  
  As a club TD, you will very rarely conclude that any action is a "serious error, wild or gambling", which is the standard required to deny redress for the non offenders. So much odd stuff goes on at club level, and taking a wild or gambling action, because you may get an adjustment if it fails, is a bit of a long shot at club level . If they are better players than you, you are going to need considerable support from other players (see if they shudder when you tell them about the suspect action) to label their action as reckless or the like. In general, at club level, I would concentrate on making the right adjustment and not on denying redress to non-offenders.
  
  
• Is there anything else to consider from this?
  
  You have to make sure that the hesitation suggests the action chosen at the table. As a rule of thumb, slow bids that may be passed suggest partner bids, slow doubles suggest bidding, slow passes suggest doing something (not passing) and suggest doubling over bidding (because if he was thinking of bidding, the hesitator can always make his bid over the double).

As a TD playing at the table you should just take your lumps: rule on the basis that there was a hesitation,
that Pass was a logical alternative, and that Pass is suggested over action.

If you think you have been done by opponents taking advantage of your position, you can appeal your own decision (the appeal is made by you, as a player, of the decision made by you, as a TD).

[Gerardo]

You say there is another TD, albeit not on duty.

I think it would be a good idea for him/her to cover rulings at your table in these circumstances.

(and for you to cover his/her table when s/he is on duty).

[blackshoe]

 hirowla, on 2011-March-01, 23:37, said:

When directing, I am usually a playing director. On this night, there were no other directors available (the other one was at the table!)

 Gerardo, on 2011-March-02, 15:33, said:

You say there is another TD, albeit not on duty.

I think it would be a good idea for him/her to cover rulings at your table in these circumstances.

(and for you to cover his/her table when s/he is on duty).

Kind of hard to ask the other TD to rule on this one, since he was also involved (I would guess on the other side).

[Gerardo]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-02, 15:47, said:

Kind of hard to ask the other TD to rule on this one, since he was also involved (I would guess on the other side).

Good point, overlooked.

Case for sitting them in the same direction?

[blackshoe]

If it's a Howell, that probably won't work either.

[Vampyr]

 hirowla, on 2011-March-01, 23:37, said:

[*]Was I right in saying when asked to decide that I'd look at the score later to see if anything unusual happened here and I would consider adjusting it if our result was unusual? (As an aside, they didn't pursue it because they got a good score).

It is rarely correct to look at the scores before adjusting. You might perhaps do it for weighted scores in an auction that seems impossible to untangle; I'm not sure when else it would be appropriate.

[mrdct]

 hirowla, on 2011-March-01, 23:37, said:

P.S For bonus points, you can tell me how to bid that hand. I'm still not sure what the right thing to do is!

With reference to your unwritten agreement of "an auction like this (without his pause) means the basic requirements for me to bid are 13 cards and a heartbeat" you might also add "any hand with a 7-5 shape should not be defending at the two-level unless it's in one of my suits".

I wouldn't in a million year consider defending 2♥ holding west's cards. As west I would've acted immediately over 1♥ and either bid 2NT or 2♣. I'd lean towards 2♣, particularly if the vul is unfavourable, as it gets my best suit in first and gives me a chance to then bid ♠ twice and fairly accurately convey my shape. Whilst 2NT has the advantage of getting the two-suiter message across immediately, you run the risk of playing in a 5-2 ♠ fit instead of a 7-2 ♣ fit.

Having already chosen to pass over 1♥ you have dug your own grave as you have already demonstrated a lack of fondness for the 7-5 shape and whilst passing out 2♥ wouldn't cross my mind, it looks like the sort of thing a player who passed over 1♥ might do from time to time, so it's got to be considered a logical alternative.

[hirowla]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-02, 16:01, said:

If it's a Howell, that probably won't work either.

Yes it was a Howell movement, so there weren't any other directors present.

[hirowla]

 mrdct, on 2011-March-03, 00:49, said:

With reference to your unwritten agreement of "an auction like this (without his pause) means the basic requirements for me to bid are 13 cards and a heartbeat" you might also add "any hand with a 7-5 shape should not be defending at the two-level unless it's in one of my suits".

I wouldn't in a million year consider defending 2♥ holding west's cards. As west I would've acted immediately over 1♥ and either bid 2NT or 2♣. I'd lean towards 2♣, particularly if the vul is unfavourable, as it gets my best suit in first and gives me a chance to then bid ♠ twice and fairly accurately convey my shape. Whilst 2NT has the advantage of getting the two-suiter message across immediately, you run the risk of playing in a 5-2 ♠ fit instead of a 7-2 ♣ fit.

Having already chosen to pass over 1♥ you have dug your own grave as you have already demonstrated a lack of fondness for the 7-5 shape and whilst passing out 2♥ wouldn't cross my mind, it looks like the sort of thing a player who passed over 1♥ might do from time to time, so it's got to be considered a logical alternative.

Yeah, I think if I'd bid earlier it wouldn't have been an issue. I think vulnerability was favourable so that should have encouraged me. I thought about bidding 3♣ at the time but chickened out because of the hand's overall weakness. Guess I wouldn't have got into that situation had I bid. BTW, I would have landed in a ♣ contract anyway - partner had a singleton ♠.

They do say bridge is a bidder's game

[hirowla]

Thanks for all your replies. I guess reading laws and looking at other hands having these situations is no match for actually going through the experience! At least it didn't happen at a Red point event or a congress, where people get decidedly unfriendly when these things happen. Mind you, I wouldn't be directing them then!

So I think a reasonable summary for a quick way to deal with these things (assuming that I'm playing) is as follows:

• Check whether there was a hesitation. If in doubt (especially if I'm involved), assume that there was one.
  
• Work out whether the hesitator's had some reasonable alternative choices to their bid.
  
• Check whether the hesitation suggests one of those choices over another.
  
• If I'm playing, don't take the suggested action! For others, if they chose that action see whether the opponents were damaged by that choice - if they have been, adjust the score.

I'll certainly be more aware of it in the future, and be more careful when I'm involved in things like this. I don't play for money so there's little at stake.

Thanks again,

Ian

[barmar]

 hirowla, on 2011-March-04, 05:01, said:

So I think a reasonable summary for a quick way to deal with these things (assuming that I'm playing) is as follows:

• Check whether there was a hesitation. If in doubt (especially if I'm involved), assume that there was one.
  
• Work out whether the hesitator's had some reasonable alternative choices to their bid.
  
• Check whether the hesitation suggests one of those choices over another.
  
• If I'm playing, don't take the suggested action! For others, if they chose that action see whether the opponents were damaged by that choice - if they have been, adjust the score.

I think you left a word out of bullet 2, and meant "hesitator's partner".

BTW, I think the double is clear-cut for a good player. When you have 4 HCP and the opponents stop at the 2 level, partner can be expected to have about 16 HCP. Holding 7 clubs, I'd expect partner to have the strength for a 1NT overcall on the 1st round, but probably a singleton club so he couldn't do it.

But determining this in a club setting can be difficult. You need to poll players of the same class as the player whose bid is in question, and there may not be enough of them in the club. The other problem is that most players have either already played the board, so they may be biased by the known outcome, or they have yet to play it and it would be improper to tell them a hand they're going to play later. At a tournament you would look for players in a different event.