Hesitation

[Bruce Owen]

A hand from our club session - mixed grade from grandmaster to novice. I would appreciate comments on the justifiability of Easts final bid. I do not want to make any comment for now as I was at the table (not East)
Bidding was as follows
N E S W
1H P
2H 3D 4H P*
P 5C X P
P P P

*West's second pass was after an incredibly long hesitation followed by a slow thoughtful pass. South noted the hesitation to East after her 5C bid with the comment "I assume you can justify the bid". The contract was 1 down. The scoresheet is an attachment to the post.

[Ed Reppert]

East clearly has UI from his partner's BIT, and that UI pretty clearly suggests bidding on. The question is whether there is an LA to bidding on. I believe pass is an LA, so I would rule there was illegal use of UI. Was there damage? Certainly. 4H is cold. So I would adjust the score to 4H making 4, NS +620/EW -620. If East is one of your better players, I'd be tempted to issue a PP as well, but I'd want to hear from him first. He might even convince me pass is not an LA.

I haven't looked at the scoresheet, as it's not relevant. The final results may seem to indicate something or other, but as you cannot be sure the auction at other tables bore much resemblance to this one, the results don't really tell you anything.

[Chris]

I'm going to have a go at this one, and am ready to stand corrected, because I think this is one of the very difficult "grey" areas.

Firstly, we have a clear hesitation by West which means that East is now in possession of UI. Under Law 73C, when a player has UI he must "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that UI". Law 16B(a) ".... partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information"

In Australia, there are guidelines that say if the action taken is one that 75% of the players in this field would have taken without the UI then there is no logical alternative. I think East had four possible actions - Pass, double, bid 5D or bid 5C. I don't think double, 5C or 5D would be a 75% action.

Looking at the scoresheet I note that there is only 1 other pair playing in a club contract - everyone else is playing 4S or 4H N/S.

I would, therefore, take the contract back to 4H/South making 10 tricks.

[Chris]

Darn Ed - you must have been typing your reply as I was doing mine !!!!

[Ed Reppert]

:-)

[Bruce Owen]

Yes Chris
We have the same 75% interpretaion in NZ too, which is why in this part of the world the scoresheet is actually relevant. The rest of the room helps the director make the correct call rather than just leave it up to him/her. Clearly this bid does not make the grade. I, by the way was South

[Ed Reppert]

Some say 75%, some say 80%, some say 70%. Makes no difference. It's still irrelevant what's on the traveller.

[bluejak]

My understanding is that the 75% rule only applied before the 2007 Laws applied, both in Australia and New Zealand. Nowadays you use what it says in the Law book:

Originally Posted by Law 16B1B

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Furthermore, you never look at the score-sheet before making a judgement ruling of this sort, which is why I have not looked at the score-sheet that you provided.

If you gave the East hand to a couple of dozen players as a bidding problem without a hesitation, would a significant proportion consider passing? In my view, yes, clearly.

Of the ones who would consider passing, would some of them actually pass? In my view, yes, clearly.

So pass is an LA [logical alternative]. Is bidding suggested over passing by the hesitation? In my view, yes, clearly.

So we rule it back to 4H making - and then look at the score-sheet out of interest.