|
HESITATION
There are several articles on this page:
ARTICLE 1: a letter from Nick Doe; Secretary, Law & Ethics Committee, EBU
HESITATION & 70% RULE
As I perhaps implied in my earlier acknowledgement, it is not really possible to define how you assess a player's peer group for the purposes of adjudicating on an unauthorised information problem, such as a call which is alleged to have been influenced by a hesitation, without going a little into the background.
A director who has to adjudicate on a hesitation situation must satisfy himself on three distinct issues:-
1. Was there unauthorised information?
2. Could the unauthorised information demonstrably have suggested the action taken?
3. Were there one or more logical alternative actions not so suggested, the choice of which might have led to a more favourable result for the non-offending side?
The question of peers arises most specifically in connection with question 3, i.e. it comes in as part of the assessment of logical alternatives. However, the background is that a player in receipt of unauthorised information is permitted to take account of authorised sources of information. The crucial thing to look at is what the unauthorised information adds to the authorised information.
For example, in the middle of a conventional sequence, a player takes a very long time to choose his call, and ends up making a bid which "does not exist". The hesitation suggests that the player may have forgotten the system, or has a hand that does not fit into the agreed responses. However, essentially, the choice of a response which does not fit into the agreed scheme might be considered pretty much to duplicate the unauthorised information.
The prior auction is authorised information. The agreements of both sides are authorised information. The legitimate inferences from the auction are authorised information. When considering the question of logical alternatives one has to consider the action taken in the context of the options available to a player who is faced with the same auction, with the same agreements and legitimate inferences, but no unauthorised information to add to the authorised information.
The section of the 2004 White Book (EBU Tournament Directors' Guide) relating to logical alternatives reads as follows:-
"16.6 Logical alternative: A "logical alternative" is a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occurred.
The converse of this is that if the TD or Appeals Committee is satisfied that over seven in ten of his peers would make a particular call, such call is evident and it is legal to make such a call whatever the unauthorised information involved.
These definitions are modified somewhat if there are several possible alternatives. For example, if there are five apparent actions, and it would be expected that two players out of ten would find each one then they are all logical alternatives.
Example - West opened 1S, North passed slowly and East passed. The TD might conclude that Pass, 1NT, double, 2C and 2D might all be found by a similar number of the player’s peers, so all are logical alternatives.
It should be noted that the standards are different nearly everywhere else in the world. Outside North America the normal standard is one player in four. The WBF have published a definition with no mention of numbers – see "Use of unauthorized information" in the Appendix WBF Code of Practice – see Section XVIII.
Knowledge of the player is used when deciding what players of equal ability might do. If the player is unknown to the TD or Appeals Committee it is best to assume he is average for the competition."
In assessing the action of the peer group (the "players of equal ability"), the director takes into account the standard of the player if he knows it. Such knowledge may well be assisted by the arguments a player puts forward in support of his actions - of course directors should not be over-influenced by players who "talk a good game", but players will often give significant clues to their abilities by the way in which they approach discussions with the director, and experienced directors tend to be very good at assessing players' expertise by picking up on such things, even if they have no advance knowledge of the individuals concerned.
In the absence of any evidence as to the player's actual standard, then the only realistic option is to take the standard of the field as the next best thing. It is not sensible, nor the intention of the Law, that the actions of a player who significantly better or worse than the rest of the field should be arbitrarily judged by the average standard of the field as a whole.
Matters of style are more difficult. At one end of the spectrum are documented agreements of the pair concerned (if a pair really does protect super-aggressively, that agreement ought to be recorded on their convention cards so that opponents know about it, quite apart from any questions arising when they protect opposite hesitations). At the other end are more nebulous and often "self-serving" arguments along the lines of "I am a very aggressive player - it would never occur to me to pass". Where the line should be drawn is not a matter of black and white, but in general a director will not go far wrong if he only takes into account documented agreements or compelling arguments concerning the style of players of equivalent ability.
I have discussed this response with John Pain, who is not only a senior EBU Tournament Director but is also responsible for TD training. In essence we confirm that the penultimate sentence of your email of 28th May is correct. You should be looking at players of the same ability as the particular player concerned. Of course in training simulations you don't have much to go on in assessing a peer group, so the participants are now given a bidding quiz in advance and the answers are used as a point of reference in assessing logical alternatives. I would be happy to qualify the last sentence of the extract quoted (the one that you considered contradictory) as follows:-
"What matters is what 70% of players of similar ability would have done, and in the absence of any information about the standard of the individual player concerned, that means what 70% of your club members would have done."
The training material has been revised since the version quoted, but John is aware of the need to consider further revisions to eliminate any remaining confusion.
I hope that this is helpful.
Regards,
Now read the further articles on hesitation and / or unauthorised information
ARTICLE 2
I find there is so much to think about I can’t help but hesitate. Why does it get penalised? This is a complex area but if you hesitate, either in the play or in the bidding, you may have given unauthorised information to partner. It is not always penalised, for example it will sometimes not be penalised where partner has an obvious bid which he would have made irrespective of any hesitation but in broad terms hesitation can cost you. Consider the following real examples – the latter from the 2004 Llangollen Congress.
Example 1: N opened 1§ and E (who was just about to open a weak 1NT) hesitated, thought, murmured something, then slowly passed! S bid 1ª whereupon W bid 2¨. N bid 2ª and, low and behold, E bids 3¨!! The contract went 1 off (-50) but 2ª makes. It transpired W had only 8 points when he bid 2¨. The hesitation and / or comment was unauthorised information to partner and the director correctly adjusted the score to 2ª making for NS. So, please remember – hesitation and comment during the bidding will cost you!! Also, if such an incident occurs at your table please call the director immediately. He will probably let the bidding and / or play continue and re-visit once the board has been played but it gives everyone a chance to agree the facts at the time the incident occurred.
Example 2
|
ª -
© K Q 7 4 3
¨ A 4 3 2
§ J 7 5 2
ª A K J 8 4 3 ª 10 9 6 5
© - © J 9 8
¨ Q 8 5 ¨ K J 7
§ K Q 9 8 § 10 6 3
ª Q 7 2
© A 10 6 5 2
¨ 10 9 6
§ A 4 |
Dealer West : All Vulnerable
West opened 1ª and North bid 2©. East bid 2NT (showing good raise in spades) and South bid 4© and West bid 4ª. North now hesitated and asked about East 2NT bid and then passed. South bid 5© and West bid 5ª. The contract went 1 down but unsurprisingly EW called the director who after consideration ruled 4ª making.
South has a perfectly good sacrifice 5© bid, especially over 4ª at game all, but the Director considered North’s hesitation and asking about the 2NT bid may have influenced South’s decision. It didn’t, I was going to bid it anyway but …….that’s life! |
ARTICLE 3
“Opponent’s finesse caught me a bit by surprise so I paused briefly (as I often do when playing a card) but partner had the K and opponents objected.” And so they should! You must not hesitate unless you “have something reasonable to consider” eg you had the K. If you hesitate because you are caught off guard by a play and have nothing to consider you should say so even if that reveals who has the K. In the example above the Director will probably award an adjusted score if it can be shown your hesitation cost opponents a trick(s).
ARTICLE 4
You must ask!! Bridge must be one of the very few games played where the players often feel embarrassed to ask a question, especially in relation to the opponents bidding. If you don’t ask – and if you do and still don’t understand – you are putting yourself at an enormous disadvantage. If you ask what a bid means and you get told its “Lebensohl” or “Landy” or “South African Texas” etc and you are still none the wiser then don’t be reticent. Ask specifically what the bid means; the Laws do not expect you to put up with jargon and some of the most common conventions like Stayman can be played with variations eg is it promissory or not. You are entitled to know!
However, you must have a valid reason to ask. Ask ONLY when it is your turn to bid. Also, if you do not intend to bid then do not ask! The very fact of you asking is conveying information to partner that you have some reason to ask and you will be penalised if that might have influenced your partner to bid, or make a particular lead etc. Wait until the end of the auction when you can freely ask questions before the opening lead is faced.
ARTICLE 5
Can we play a board even if I have overheard something about it? If someone calls out the score or makes a comment about what contract is possible, or states anything of substance about the hand - and that comment is heard by an adjoining table - they are required by the Laws to call the Director as it clearly would be unfair for them now to play the board and score it. Those deprived of playing the board (NS & EW) will receive an awarded score of at least 60% and those responsible for making the comment will be deducted Match Points. (The board may then only be played for fun at that table).
|