What call is suggested by this hesitation?
(A hypothetical ruling request. This didn't happen at the table.)
Suppose the bidding starts 1S, (2H), P, (P); dealer is not vulnerable, the overcalling side is vulnerable, matchpoint scoring. Let's assume that by agreement, a 2NT bid here by opener would show an 18-count.
Opener has a balanced hand that's borderline between passing out 2H and reopening – say it has only 16 points, but including AK of hearts, and has high honours in every suit. A poll would discover that plenty of people would rebid 2NT, and plenty of people would pass; they're both logical alternatives.
However, responder hesitated a long time before passing 2H, and opener bid 2NT anyway (with responder raising to 3NT, which is a shaky contract but makes due to a fortunate layout). The director is called to confirm the bid after a hesitation, and called back at the end of play to make a ruling.
The defending side say that the hesitation implies that responder has a stronger hand than the pass might indicate. As such, it suggests that opener should bid on in the hope of making game.
The declaring side agree that the hesitation implies that responder has a stronger hand than the pass might indicate. However, they disagree about what that means for the bidding – if responder has a maximum pass, then they are likely to raise opener to game, and doing so makes reopening very dangerous. With a good heart stop and responder being maximum, 2H is very likely to be beaten (and may well go for 200); however, if opener bids, responder is quite likely to raise too high, leading to a minus score for the opening side that wouldn't be reached elsewhere. Meanwhile, if responder were weaker, 2H would be likely to make and 2NT would be likely passed out, meaning that 2NT is a better call opposite a stronger responder and Pass is better against a weaker responder. As such, the declaring side thinks that the hesitation actually suggests passing, and thus that they were obligated to bid on!
Which side's argument is correct? That is, does the hesitation suggest bidding on and thus require passing, or does it suggest passing and thus require bidding, or does it not suggest either?
Comments
Is a negative double available to show the other two suits and 10+ points?
I doubt it makes a difference to the demonstrable suggestion part of the case (just the logical alternative part), but assume that a double by either opener or responder would be/have been negative (but that a negative double by opener would imply substantially weaker hearts).
Don't forget responder has "hesitated" and that Opener has used that information and may have damaged the opponents. So whatever the participants say at the time or what they would or would not do is immaterial. It isn't a case of which players are right but what the "probable" outcome(s) of the board might have been had the infraction not occurred. Law 16 B and Law 12 C 1. I know you have said that a poll would suggest that bidding and passing are logical alternatives. So should the director consider giving a weighted result, which includes other possible legal outcomes?
CMOT
The problem is: if 2NT isn't demonstrably suggested over passing then we have to allow it - which means that the result stands. If it is demonstrably suggested then it would appear that the only alternative is to consider pass (assuming double isn't a possible call).
Personally I would consider: what would a fast pass indicate (and not a quick way to getting a ride at Disney). If partner passes quickly then the default response would be to pass - in case your RHO has values. (The hand may be good enough that we insist on a double or rebidding 2 Spades since pass is demonstrably suggested by the speed of partner's pass.)
And if a fast pass suggests passing then how can a slow pass also suggest passing? Basically the declaring side are trying to hoodwink you into allowing a breach of partnership agreements based on UI.Such an action is not "carefully avoid taking advantage of the unauthorised information"
"So should the director consider giving a weighted result, which includes other possible legal outcomes?"
I think you are probably not suggesting this, but to avoid any doubt to other readers, I should make clear that in UI cases a weighted ruling cannot include any proportion of the outcome of an auction using the call disallowed due to UI considerations.
After thinking about this for a while, my view of this is that the complexity is caused because this bidding situation isn't just a case of "X is better if partner is weaker, Y is better if partner is stronger".
Instead, we have a situation where passing is better if partner is very weak (2NT might get doubled or go down a lot, compared to 2H making overtricks), bidding is better if partner is a little stronger (2NT down 1 or 2 compared to 2H making, a good sacrifice at the vulnerability and one that's unlikely to be doubled), passing is better again if partner is still stronger (2H will go down, but partner will probably raise 2NT to a non-making 3NT, so passing goes plus), and bidding is better again if partner is stronger still (2H will go down but partner raises to 3NT, and 3NT making is better). The last scenario is unlikely because partner would probably have bid differently earlier, so we have an (unusual) case where passing is best if partner is unusually strong or weak, but bidding is best if partner has an average hand.
As such, I'm inclined to think that either a fast pass or a slow pass demonstrably suggests passing. The problem with that, of course, is that it implies that an in-tempo pass, suggesting that partner has a normal hand, therefore must demonstrably suggest bidding on – but we don't normally find against a pair who calls in normal tempo! In a way, such a call is unauthorised information, just like an expected alert is, and just like a question in an "always ask" position is, but it's hard to say that a player isn't allowed to make use of the information that their partner was able to bid in tempo.
I don't think that a pass in tempo can LEGALLY convey unauthorised information, even if a player can make inferences. "unmistakeable hesitation or unwonted speed" do.and "it is desirable... for players to maintain steady tempo" and even Law 73C only mentions "haste or hesitation".