Hesitations in Bridge
by William F. Hall (≈ 1978)
revised by Bob Gruber, Aug. 25, 2008
Bridge is a game of finely tuned communication, during both the auction and the play. While mannerisms, tone of voice, facial expressions and hesitations are an integral, legitimate part of poker, they have no place at the bridge table. The proprieties and ethics of bridge declare that knowledge so gained by one partner from another is unauthorized information and the recipient may not legally act upon that information.
One of the primary avenues of illegal communication is hesitations, whether deliberate or inadvertent. Hesitations convey subtle, but often unmistakable information. Should a hesitation possibly conveying unauthorized information occur, call the Director so he/she may assure that the hesitating side does not benefit therefrom, and that the opposing side does not suffer as a result. Further, if the act appears to be a deliberate attempt to communicate or mislead, the Director shares this potentially unethical conduct with all the Unit’s Directors. Offenses so noted may be periodically reviewed, and if the accumulated weight of evidence convinces the reviewers that the offender is guilty of repeated unethical conduct, he/she may be barred from future events.
In the following sections, hesitations are illustrated with cases drawn from actual play, in order that players will more readily recognize them when they occur and be better prepared to help the Director repair the resulting damage.
Informative Hesitations
A hesitation, of itself, seldom constitutes an impropriety. Every player, including the most expert, occasionally faces difficult decisions which require some time to resolve. It is never improper to hesitate over a legitimate problem. However, a hesitation during the auction or on defense passes information to the hesitator’s partner, information which it is improper for him to use, since it was not conveyed by the actual bid or play finally selected. Therefore, whenever such an informative hesitation occurs, the players should call the Director to monitor further developments.
Two suggestions may greatly decrease the possible embarrassment for all concerned. First, when an opponent hesitates and you feel the Director must be called, you should assure your opponents that nothing wrong has happened, and that they are not being accused of unethical conduct. Second, if partner has hesitated and you know you are going to take an action which the opponents may not consider justified, or which appears unusual, you should call the Director if the opponents have not. By not calling the Director, your opponents have expressed trust that you will behave ethically, ignoring the information passed by your partner’s hesitation. If you take an action which appears to betray that trust, then by not calling the Director yourself, you place the opponents in the position of accusing you of unethical conduct if they do subsequently call, or of suffering their imagined damage in silence if they do not call.
|