Join Bridge Winners
Hesitation Habits and Unauthorized Information--How to Enforce Law 16 in Practice?

Typically, after an invitational bid that was slow (e.g., a slow limit raise), partner isn't constrained on whether to accept because a slow invitation doesn't demonstrably suggest either bidding on or passing.  Partner's problem might equally well have been that he was considering a weaker bid (e.g., a single raise) or that he was considering forcing to game.

However, a given player may have a habit of only hesitating in one of the two situations.  For example, some aggressive players would resolve any close decision between inviting and forcing game in favor of forcing game.  For partners who have played with them for a while, the hesitation clearly suggests passing the invitation.  An opponent unfamiliar with their tendencies won't recognize that anything is amiss and likely won't even call the director, but probably won't ask fpr redress later even if they do call to note the hesitation.  Even an opponent familiar with their tendencies will not get any redress, since it's impossible to give the director sufficient (any?) evidence that passing was demonstrably suggested. 

Even recorder forms won't help.  You'd need an awful lot of recorders filed on a pair's tendencies to conclude that their slow invitations are always thin and never heavy.  And almost no one would have a reason to file recorders.  And any pair who had it in for a perfectly innocent pair could simply file truthful recorder forms but only in instances where the slow invites were light and just not bother filing them when the slow invites were heavy.  For that matter, the recorders could get stacked for unintentional reasons--if word gets around that a particular pair always has light invites when they hesitate, the recorder may well end up with the "evidence" even if this isn't true.  After all, the 50% of the time that that pair hesitates with a heavy invite, the opponents will realize nothing is amiss and won't fill out a recorder.  (Biased sampling doesn't work!)  So recorder forms are pretty much useless for judging this sort of tendency.

Note that slow invitations aren't the only potential problem here.  Other examples:

(1) whether partner's slow forcing passes tend to be closer to doubling or closer to bidding on;

(2) whether partner's slow opening spot leads tend to be active or passive;

(3) whether partner's slow overcalls are more likely to be close to a pass or close to a takeout double.  OK, this last one is kind of unusual because I think that a director would typically rule that a slow overcall suggests a weak overcall.  *But in some partnerships what it really might suggest is support for the unbid suits*.

It seems to me that this is a real problem to which there are no easy answers. 

I'm curious what others think a reasonable solution is.

117 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top